"Allowing"? By what right does government presume to "allow" (or, in this case, forbid) you to make your own standards concerning your child's education?
Government has no such right. Neither the state nor "society as a whole" has any interests of its own in your child's education. A society is only a group of individuals, and the government's only legitimate function is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including yours and your children's, against physical force and fraud. The state is your agent, not a separate entity with interests that can override your rights.
Yes--a child is not state property (and incidentally, neither are you!). The state works for us, not the other way around. Rights are not privileges or entitlements granted to us by the state; they are objective and the purpose of the state is to protect them.
Parents are sovereign individuals whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to control their child's upbringing. Other citizens, however numerous or politically powerful, have no moral right to substitute their views on child-raising for those of the father and mother who created that child.
Yes. I did not go to all this trouble to see the values of others being substituted by law for MY judgment as to how best to raise my kids. You don't like my values or the way I raise my kids? Well, then, go get some kids of your own and do it differently. You get to do that and it's no skin off my nose (unless somehow it interferes with my rights)--and vice versa.
Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child's parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. Parents who starve their children may properly be ordered to fulfill their parental obligations, on pain of losing legal custody. But the fact that some parents may serve better food than others does not permit government to seize control of nutrition, outlaw home-cooked meals, and order all children to report for daily force-feeding at government-licensed cafeterias.
YES!!!!! I've seen this analogy in numerous places--and this is the logical progression to this kind of collectivist thinking. If handling my kids' education myself is detrimental to them, simply because the state has not deemed me to be an "expert," then why should I be "allowed" to feed them? I'm no nutritionist--I don't have a credential. But I do have a certain level of common sense, education, and value my kids' health, so I do try to serve them healthy food. Sometimes, though, they eat candy. Healthy? No. A violation of their rights? No. Am I an unfit parent who needs help forced upon me in the guise of a government-credentialed "expert?" No. Food feeds their bodies; education feeds their minds. Same thing. As their parents, we are morally obligated to care for them--it is our responsibility and if there is evidence of starvation, then and only then, should someone step in.
Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? Or are they sovereign individuals whose right to guide their children's development the state may not infringe?
The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.
YES! Seriously, read the whole article. It's great.