I'm a libertarian, and a parent. You seem to have some interest in this "unschooling" thing, which is fine and which is your right, but you seem to think others know about this (they don't), that it's obviously superior (I really doubt this given what you've said so far), and that it's got some connection to libertarianism (I doubt this too--overthickism). To analogize a designed classroom with central planning is thickism run amok. The problem with central planning is that it involves aggression agaisnt property rights (which setting up a classroom doesn't) and that it suffers from the calculation problem (a private institution does not). You said that we favored some use of police, etc. violence against kids--that is crazy. We are both libertarians, both against corporal punishemnt (I'm against punishment altogether), and anarchists. You are free to have your own philosophy about education, and to rear your kids the way you see fit. I'm skeptical there is any one right approach. You can believe there is if you want. But I disagree with your attempted linkage between your pet educaitonal preferences and views, and libertarian principles. I have seen lots of rinky dink little schools set up based on some founder's pet ideas. It reminds me of the way protestants split off from the Roman Catholic Church and set up their own things, always reinventing the wheel. Montessori is not perfect but it's had a century to refine its approach and there is an overall, systematic, guiding philosophy that teachers etc. can draw on. It's not ad hoc and subject to the latest fads that some guy heading his own rinky dink school might latch onto. There is continuity and deep thinking about this. I said in the interview I am not dogmatic about montessori or any particular approach, but what I like about it is that they focus deeply and think about the child and his appropriate stage. Your main opposition seems to lie in your "unschooling" ideas and some kind of view that you apparently hold (that you think we other libertarians know about but do not) that kids should "choose" their own teachers, that if you don't let them run into traffic it is some kind of violation of their rights. You are free to hold these views but frankly they sound kooky and crankish. I honestly think you are going to have a hard time persuading parents to turn their kids over to someone who thinks it's aggression not to let a kid wander away from the building, or that it's some kind of authoritarianism or police action to choose their teachers or caretakers. For you to insinuate my ideas are "dangerous" or wrong is, I think, obviously wacko. I'm a libertarian, like you apparently, and am opposed to aggression. To equate use of schools--even private schools--to educate children with central planning, statism, etc., is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I suppose it's possible there is more to this "unschooling" "philosophy" you have latched onto than would appear from the surface, but given your comments so far you are not making a good case for taking it seriously at all.

Mr Kinsella. You didn't really address my arguments. If a child doesn't want a teacher, should we force that teacher on him? If a child doesn't want to go to school, should we force that on him? If a child naturally desires to play when an adult wants him to read, should we force reading on him? I believe in treating a child's desire with utmost respect. He has them for a reason, and when we say they should read when their desires yearn to play, we are undermining their natural desires and teaching them to obey authority. Should they obey authority because authority is right? I can not find a way to make an argument that in one random moment it is right for the child to read rather than to play. He might wish to read later. Therefore we are telling them that they should obey authority as a virtue ... which obviously undermines any other true virtue there is. If a blind man wandered into traffic I would physically stop him. Do you, as a Libertarian, find that to be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principal? If a child walked in front of traffic I would stop him. This seems a criticism you have been given as a libertarian, and it seems willfully ignorant to ask it of me. I compared forced education (including Montessori) to central planning because it is an authority determining what a group of people will do by threat of force. I think that is a fair use of the phrase central planning. I went to a Montessori School. I have read 3 of Maria Montessori's books. I was an advocate of the Montessori system for years. I largely enjoyed the Montessori school that I went to, and begged my parents to send me back once I experienced public school. I liked the Montessori school because of what other options I could compare it to. However, If I chose not to go to school I would have been forced to go. If I wanted to leave school I would have been forced to stay. If I didn't want to do what my teacher thought I should do, I might receive some initial empathy, but in the end I would have ultimately been forced to do what the teacher wanted me to do. This is a fairly clear violation of the NAP. I wasn't making a case for Unschooling in this blog. I merely pointed to problematic ideas that I saw. I had no desire to offend, and I believe I handled it sensitively. I do understand that criticizing a way someone parents their child can be a sensitive subject. However, the condescending tone in your response is unneeded and unhelpful. I encourage you to answer my questions if you wish, or address the original arguments I have made in this post. Aaron

Aaron, I don't agree with you. I don't view classrooms as "centrally planned," and I don't agree that parenting means nothing. I don't think parental authority is incompatible with libertarian principles, nor that the child should choose their own teacher. I don't view my kid as being "forced" to attend school; he agrees that he should go to school and likes it, because I've persuaded him why this makes sense. He is not threatened with physical violence if he refuses to attend, nor with deprivation. So it is in no wise imposing force. I've been a parent for 7 years now and a libertarian the whole time, and see no unlibertarian use of force in the relationship. I disagree that a kid is "forced" to go to school any more than they are forced to learn to swim, to read, to play chess. I am actually not insulted or offended by your comments--I am simply dumbfounded. Our perspectives just differ radically. That's okay with me.

Aaron, your argument is based off of thinking that children are wholly equal to adults. Children, when they are born, know practically nothing of the culture and knowledge they have been born into. They are born with poor reasoning, and most likely with a misunderstanding of what awaits them in the world. They are indeed "pre-rational" beings. The age at which one obtains rationality and clear reasoning are fairly arbitrary (and may never truly come), but I'm certain most caring parents could tell once their children reached it. That being said, until children reach their age of rationality, a loving and guiding hand needs to be there to teach them, or send them to someone who can teach them, the fundamentals of current knowledge: arithmetic to algebra/geometry, reading, spelling, grammar, basic history (purely facts without propaganda), and the basic sciences. Once these children learn and understand these things, can they move onto higher things (philosophy, economics, psychology, ect.), but are surely not stopped from looking at the books before I'd consider them ready. They can also pursue hobbies in the arts, technology, sports, and whatever else interests them. If a child does not want to learn the fundamentals, but is mentally/physically able to do so, then for the long term interest of the child, I could see forcing them to learn it. If they do not and will not, the ramifications could be horrific. I would suspect most of the people not forced to learn what they needed, would look back and say "why wasn't I forced to learn this?" Also, there is the fact that information sticks with children better than with any other age group; so just "waiting till they want to do it" is counterproductive to the rate at which the new individual could start learning. My last point is also that the child, before they have reached this age of rationality, is basically dependent on the adult. The adult provides them food, water, clothing, shelter, love (I'd assume), education (if these are the parents applicable to this argument), and protection from harm in the world (physical or psychological). As it is, it could been seen as them making an investment, or as them wanting to bring another strong individual into the world; but in any case: the parents are their guardian, and most likely know what they consider best for their child.

Aaron, I like the idea of unschooling, but I think it would be hard right now for one or two radical families per community to implement this idea to its fullest potential. Since it is such a rare phenomenon, there is no fully developed "free market" of learning options for the child to choose from. As of now, the unschooled child is left to choose from learning from self-teaching (books, internet, tv) or friends (peers, family members, maybe a rare private tutor). I'm guessing that if unschooling were a more popular thing, there would be a lot more freelance teachers and educational opportunities available, such as (and I'm making this up on the spot) traveling math/science/whatever camps that come to town for a couple weeks, clubs and activity groups for anything under the sun, and so on. Now obviously I'm not saying these challenges can't be overcome, I'm just pointing out that the pioneers of unschooling will have to try their best to compensate for this lack of an "unschooling market." This challenge may prove too daunting and risky for most parents, who really just want to see their kids get a "good education" so that they someday can get a "good job," and so getting the ball rolling on this unschooling movement may be very difficult, no?

@Libertarianishumanism: Anecdotally, I can back up your assertion of someone asking "why wasn't I forced to learn this?" As a child I grew up in rural parts the Middle East, surrounded by Arabic speakers. We only spoke English in the home, though, and despite the fact that I hung out with Arabic speakers regularly, my Arabic was only sub-par at best because my parents never provided me with any formal teaching about the language (more advance grammar lessons, vocab lists, etc.). We've returned to the States long ago, and I eventually picked up these Arabic lessons at college, but I am certainly peeved that I'm struggling to learn this language now in my twenties rather than when it could've been far easier in my earliest years.

This is one of the best blog posts I have every read - really mind-opening and challenging - and on one of my key areas of interest. Thanks Aaron- you've given me a radically different and exciting perspectiveon the most important activity in the world. A thousand thank yous :) :) :)

Thank you Aaron. That video bothered me as well, for the same reasons. I agree with you 100% and I think your points are valid and well argued. Unfortunately, in the domain of education at least, reasoning does not reach Stephan (Kinsella, and to a smaller extent Molyneux as well), it seems his emotional defenses kick in and prevent him from examining any evidence one may offer. My understanding of psychology is limited but I think this mental block is mostly the result of some childhood trauma, most likely from abusive parenting. Since this is a very common ailment it should be easy to find a therapist who cures it, probably in less than a month or two. I don't think it would take much more than just talking to someone with a sympathetic ear, his own reasoning mind can do the work once the data actually reaches it. Our kids are entering their third year of not going to school. One is 12, the other is 10, both find this better because they have more time for the things they want to do, such as reading, playing, drawing, etc. It also lets them go to bed and wake up whenever they want. They do have a schedule though, but it is one they've chosen themselves: they both take music lessons (piano, flute, xylophone and drums) and have several sports club memberships (track & field, gymnastics, judo, sailing and a few others). If they had to spend their days in school they wouldn't be able to do half of these, and it would come at the expense of other things they like to do. As it is now, they can do all this and they can enjoy a healthy dose of free time as well. They read and they like to read, they can write reasonably well (certainly better than most kids their age), they can count as well as evaluate prices and discuss the merits of the things they choose to buy with the money they save (they each receive $3 a week, which they have occasionally supplemented by selling some of their belongings they don't use anymore). They've been using computers for years, we don't restrict their use of the internet in any way. They rarely fight or get angry and when they do it is quickly over, they don't sulk, they don't make fun of others or bully anyone or get bullied by anyone. All in all they are happy, active, responsible young persons who get along well with others and whose awareness of the range of possibilities open to them is far more developed than that of typical school-bound children. How do we manage this, day to day? I was already working at home and when we had kids my spouse decided to only work part-time. We had saved enough to last us through the first years, when the children required constant attention). It meant less money and it wasn't always easy but so far it has turned out ok, and it is certainly better than using violence or the threat of violence on our own children (forcing them or allowing others to force them to go to school), just because everybody else thinks nothing of it. Stephan, I hope you will listen to the podcasts on this site, even if only the first few. If you can present arguments refuting what Brett says (or what Aaron writes above, instead of just stating that you don't agree), you'll do everyone a great service.

Aaron, I just watched your The Value of Your Labor video. This should lead to new possibilities getting explored here, thank you!

http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/real-time-relationships-the-book.aspx @LibertarianismIsAHumanism & the board in general Perhaps the proponents of unschooling aren't making a good enough case for it (or just scratching the surface in a way that makes little sense to one not brought up in an unschooling environment). A good place to start is http://joyfullyrejoycing.com/ which offers both general principles on unschooling and addresses specific fears that most parents have in an ad hoc fashion. Another great read is http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/real-time-relationships-the-book.aspx, and check out http://www.sudval.com/essays/122009.shtml and http://www.sudval.com/01_abou_09.html for specific answers from a so-called 'school' that practices 'unschooling'. From Real Time Relationships: "Most of us are raised as slaves. Our opinions are rarely sought, rules are rarely explained – and moral rules never are – we are shipped off to schools where we are treated disrespectfully; our subservience is bought with rewards, and our independence is punished with detentions. Scepticism and curiosity are scorned and belittled, while empty abilities like throwing balls, learning dates, sitting still and 'being pretty' are praised and elevated." On the argument that children aren't rational... well, I'd seriously contest that. In fact, some of the first things that children learn at a young age is rationality: for a while, babies will think that something that is out of sight (under a blanket, covered with hands) is simply gone from the world, but over time they will begin to understand the concept of consistency. They also learn cause and effect in a variety of different ways: touch something hot, get burned, or whatever. They'll begin to see others as real people as they are (begin to get a sense of selflessness) and that what applies to them applies to everyone. A babies first few years are all spent learning the basic rules of the world and developing logical, rational axioms. It's when adults jump in that children lose their sense of rationality; an excerpt from Real Time Relationships illustrates this: "To understand why we are so blind to our own enslavement as adults, we need to understand how we are first enslaved as children. As always, our enslavement begins with moral hypocrisies inflicted upon us by those in authority. Parents will always call us "selfish" if we fail to act on the basis of their emotional preferences. If your mother wants to talk to you, and you do not want to talk to her, then you are "selfish" if you choose not to talk to her. This is a mad moral mythology which is utterly unraveled by a moment’s thought. We are taught "consideration" not as a mere personal preference on the part of our parents, but rather as an objective and absolute moral principle. If "consideration for the feelings of others" is thus such an axiomatic and universal moral value, then clearly it must at least apply equally to both parents and their adult children. "It is good to be sensitive to the feelings of others," sayeth our parents. "It is bad to perform actions which cause unhappiness in others." We swallow this as a moral absolute – and thus feel guilt whenever we violate this principle. [...] Ah, but if "consideration" is in fact a universal principle, a moral absolute, then it binds our parents as surely as it binds us. So... If your mother apologizes for her lack of consideration, asks you what would make you feel better, then you can rest assured that she did not inflict the moral principle of "consideration" in order to control and bully you, but rather because she genuinely wanted you to be good – and that she knew all about goodness, because she practised moral behaviour herself." Molyneaux explains earlier how this is largely the result of how the parents were raised: paraphrased, he explains that when we are attacked for failing to respect our parents or expressing our opinions or feeling relaxed, we build up an anxiety and fear that lasts throughout our adulthood. We are forced by our parents, through our desire to have someone to empathize with us or feel secure with (described as "a lack of bonding, a lack of empathy, an absence of sensitivity towards the feelings of the child"), to transform the fear of their punishments or anger into a semblance of love and respect for them ("You are selfish when you don't talk to me" = "Must respect parents to earn their love"), which creates fundamentally insecure and unstable adults. "Thus you must pretend on the outside the opposite of what you feel on the inside. You must show "love" and/or "respect" despite feeling fear and hatred." "If a child perceives that she cannot rely on her bond with her mother – which is to say that her mother’s capacity to empathize with her comes and goes at best – then the child feels fundamentally insecure, because positive and empathetic treatment cannot be relied on." The eventual result of this is that "this form of the 'Stockholm Syndrome' has disastrous effects on a child’s long-term emotional development and integrity. Instead of learning how to interact in a rational manner with reality, the child ends up forced into a situation of eternal hyper-vigilance wherein she constantly scans the behaviour of those around her, endlessly alert for any signs of an impending attack." He continues: "This terrible equation – 'relaxation = danger' – keeps the child in a constant state of high alert, of hyper-vigilance, and effectively prevents her from ever coming to a true understanding of her situation." He describes children as being naturally relaxed and carefree; "children enter this world in an un-abused state. They are not afraid, they are not hyper-vigilant, they are not twisted, they have not become enemies to themselves or others – they are curious, perceptive, engaged and benevolent." He continues by explaining that the child eventually begins acting in ways that caused anxiety in the parent whenever the parent did those things as a child, and the parent feels a strong need to repress those anxious feelings by verbally rebuking the child in a similar manner that she were verbally rebuked as a child: "For [the parent], then, any sudden eruption of pain and fear is associated with a direct attack. Thus for [the parent], [the child’s] innocent anxiety-provoking behaviour is the direct emotional equivalent of her parents’ abusive attacks. Furthermore, the only way that [the parent] could create any sense of security and control as a child was to brutally repress her own emotional responses. In other words, 'that which causes anxiety must be brutally repressed' is the law of her emotional land. Now, when [the parent] was a child she could not brutally repress her own parents, because that created further attacks – thus she had to brutally repress her own anxieties. The difference with her own child, however, is that she now has the power to repress [the child], which she did not have with her own parents when she was a child." Thus, once the children starts acting in ways that would have earned swift attack when the parent was young, the parent reacts by feeling extremely anxious. The parent begins to associate feelings of impending anxiety and nervousness with the childs behaviours, and since in the parents world, "that which causes anxiety must be brutally repressed" ("You must show 'love' and/or 'respect' despite feeling fear and hatred"), the parent attempts to repress the emotions with verbal rebukes. We are taught at a very young age not to question anything and have ingrained in us this idea that, as I paraphrase, "people should respect us and we have the right to attack them if they fail to give that respect", just as our parents did to us. You might not consider it an 'attack' to tell children "please don't do that", but as Molyneaux explains, "'It upsets Mommy when you act like that,' we may say gently – however, like the initially polite letters from the IRS, a not too subtle threat is always visible between the lines. We talk about 'politeness,' 'niceness' and 'consideration for the feelings of others,' and so on, but what we are really saying is: 'It makes me angry when you make me anxious, so you’d better stop!' Children, due to their amazingly perceptive natures, find it hard to take these lectures seriously, because they sense the contradiction and narcissism at the root of such speeches. Thus they generally tend to continue to do what comes naturally to them, despite the anxiety that their actions cause other people." The result of all this is that I believe that the feeling of anxiety you might have when your child doesn't apply themselves to school subjects or directly-applicable learning is the unfounded product of a vicious cycle that has been occuring for generations. It greatly damages relationships to make hypocritical moral speeches, but also tell them "You need it for your future" regarding Math when they really want to get into Music and they'll never use Math again. Math is great for building logical skills, but logic skills are of little use to a musician or dancer who really ought to be dancing and singing and listening to music all day at a young age to gain 'musical skills'. It is the unschooling philosophy that a child forced to learn that which does not interest them ends up resenting learning in general, and that only when the child sees a direct correlation between the thing that they are learning or doing and the benefit it provides will they ever apply themselves enough to learn it; but when they do, they tend to learn quickly, assuming that they haven't been put through school first. From the Sudbury Valley School FAQ: "Mimsy: Kids who leave here are usually extremely well-prepared to go to college. First of all, they're quite knowledgeable, and they're very articulate. If you want to go to a college for which you need SAT scores (which certainly is not every college at all) then that's one of the things you're motivated to do, and you apply yourself to learning how to do well on the SAT's. This is not a strange idea. Recently, a guest came to the school, and he said, "Oh, I knew someone from this school once," – this person was a teacher – "I tutored him in math. He had graduated from your school and yet he knew very little math and he wanted to take the SAT's. But within six weeks, he had learned everything I had to teach him." That speaks to motivation. This child was not interested in learning math until he needed it for the SAT's and when he needed it for the SAT's, he learned it quickly. Colleges are not as different from Sudbury Valley, I think, as high schools are, because you're expected to have a lot more autonomy and a lot more responsibility for doing what you need to do in college than you have in most high schools. Daria: So then what you're saying is that students, when they are motivated to learn, will learn rather quickly instead of being drawn out, taken into bits and pieces and little bitty segments like we tend to do in our schools today. When they are motivated, they can learn instantly." Most children can pick up rudimentary reading, writing, and arithmetic skills from life in general. Sure, it might not be to the degree you think is right, but isn't that hypocritical as a listener of this show to claim you know "the One True Way"? Besides, if they're really into Music, what the heck do they need logic skills for? What do we have calculators for, decoration? I, personally, am into math and logic, so I'm not speaking from an antagonistic view of math, but one with a lot of personal experience with it! You don't need much more than Grade 4 math to function in this world. The unschooling philosophy makes the parents responsible for two simple things: providing the resources for kids to explore & learn (so you can still 'teach' them, in a sense, as long as they're interested, but this manifests in other ways like taking them other places) while being a positive role model in their lives. This means that you demonstrate to them, through your actions, what it's like to be generous and forgiving and respectful of other people and their interests, as opposed to hypocritically demanding it from them (show them how to love instead of demanding love: accept them wholely for who they are and accept that trying to change them just builds resentment and fear). In addition, this means allowing them to make their own decisions (so to not teach them to be controlling of others) in life. Certainly you can provide information, certainly you can tell them the consequences of their actions, certainly you can be there for them and walk them through trying to figure something out (sort of like an extension of the 'provide resources' clause above): however, if they are ever to make choices in their life, you need to actually let them. It's funny how you would say that children might exclaim "why wasn't I forced to learn this?" if not coerced into learning things, but that sounds like the product of a public school grad; given autonomy and a little bit of direction children won't complain about such things, they'll just go out and learn it! Autonomy breeds initiative, and part of life (and the free market) means making mistakes and suffering the consequences. Better still, rather than scolding your child on their mistakes, be there for them to walk them through fixing it! http://joyfullyrejoycing.com/ explains this well. Information seems to stick when you're a kid since you're naturally curious at that time and haven't had the curiosity sucked out of you. At least, that's my opinion. You can teach yourself a lot of things if you're interested; I've got no problem teaching myself lots of things I'm interested in learning, but that's probably because I was naturally good at a lot of school subjects and I haven't had nearly as much of a traumatic experience with learning as many kids. "Arithmetic to algebra/geometry, reading, spelling, grammar, basic history (purely facts without propaganda), and the basic sciences." I think knowledge of these can be attained easily by kids who are curious, and it's really subjective in regards to what you think is 'fundamental'. One of the biggest problems with school is that it takes a lot of effort and concentration, and results in a lot of trauma and pain, which naturally exhausts the children. Most children go straight to video games or whatever after school, and that's not because they hate learning but because they hate school and need to depressurize with something mindless and fun. Unschooling parents will always tell you that their kid is as enthusiastic for learning as they are while playing video games. "My last point is also that the child, before they have reached this age of rationality, is basically dependent on the adult." That's one of the big problems with the relationship. Molyneaux explains that the only way to ensure a quality relationship is to have choice in the matter (just like an anarcho-capitalist would say the same thing about the economy), so you can be free to accept the relatioships that both of you enjoy while rejecting the relationships that are harmful to either of you. Naturally, we have no choice in the matter when it comes to our parents and so I would think that it'd be their responsibility, as Molyneaux puts it, "to ensure that if our child did have a choice in the matter, they would pick us over all others". Sort of like being a free market parent over a statist parent, lol! You shouldn't be forced to like your parents because they are biologically related to you or are 'your parents, so just like them', you should love them because they are virtuous and kind. "As it is, it could been seen as them making an investment, or as them wanting to bring another strong individual into the world; but in any case: the parents are their guardian, and most likely know what they consider best for their child." Certainly the parents have a much better idea than anyone else and should never be forced out of that role, but it doesn't hurt persuading them to correct a few mistakes that they can't be blamed for having (kid's don't come with instruction manuals!). And I hate the word 'investment', sounds like what you do on a farm with cattle. You ought to be a little more considerate of human beings than that to want a child! Just kidding, but still, the semantics might reflect your thoughts.

I wonder why the comments section doesn't support newline characters :/. That renders my post almost unreadable, lol!