From a libertarian’s perspective, there are few failings of modern liberalism worse than its subordination of the individual to identity groups or to the collective as a whole. In this manner, modern liberalism flips on its head the tenets of classical liberalism, in which libertarianism finds its roots. We see this mindset in, among other areas, affirmative action, public accommodation theory, and education.

The last policy area is today’s matter. Behold the latest pearl of wisdom from liberal philosopher Adam Swift. Swift seeks to get parents to, at least occasionally, feel bad about reading to their children. Why? Because it puts kids whose parents don’t read to them at a disadvantage.

Yep, you read that right. His exact words, quoted in the link:

I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.

The visceral response to such a suggestion should be “Go [redacted] yourself.” As a response, it is indeed visceral, and rude, and profane, and aggressive (and not just in a micro- sense). It’s also correct. I see no reason to attempt to rationally argue with someone whose brain actually generated such an idea.

Caring for one’s own, especially one’s children, is a deeply ingrained and genetically hard-wired behavior. Just as any parent who sees his or her child attacked by an adult would react with swinging fists or worse, any parent who is told that he or she shouldn’t do good by his or her children can and should (verbally ) push back.

So, go ahead and scream at the screen. You don’t even have to get to the part where he speaks against trying to put your kid in the best school possible in order to justifiably call this [redacted] a [redacted].

Now, lets consider the twisted mindset that spawned such garbage. The goal of such folks, a goal they consider noble and high-thinking, is to help the kids who’ve come out last in the lottery that is parentage and place of birth. There’s nothing wrong with that sentiment PROVIDED that this help be provided voluntarily and without doing harm to other kids. However, that’s not what Swift and his ilk are doing or believe. They aren’t happy about the kids who’ve been born to more caring parents. They’re not even indifferent to them. They see those kids as obstacles to the kids they want to help, and so they have no problem with “dumbing down” those kids. When was the last time you heard one of these geniuses speaking in favor of programs for gifted students? Ever hear anything but rank hostility towards home schooling, or to the idea of vouchers that schools-tax-paying parents could use to put their kids in the schools of their choice, even if they’re private?

The goal is homogenization, that is, every kid gets the same education, no matter that some are naturally smarter than others, no matter that some may have to sit, bored to tears, through class work they’ve already mastered. Call it a redistribution of education, where those whose parents have taken a greater interest have that greater interested diluted and apportioned out to those whose parents haven’t. It doesn’t matter if parents choose to work more, live more modest lifestyles, forego new cars or fancy electronics or expensive clothes or leisure time in order to give their kids a leg up. In fact, that leg up is unfair, and the state is obligated to counteract it.

The end result, of course, will be to make everybody equally dumb, insecure, and needy. Except, that is, for the liberal pols who will promise to be their surrogate mommies and daddies when they “grow up.” Those folks will go to elite prep schools and Ivy League colleges, so that they can remain isolated from the unwashed masses they loathe so. The solons who come up with this garbage will deny this, but it is what has happened and will happen.

This is the standard “equality of outcome” vs “equality of opportunity” bit, and a mutation of affirmative action. To these SJW types, the “disadvantaged” kids are more important than all the other kids. The kids who don’t have parents interested enough to read to them are obviously not being fully compensated by the AA system (in the SJW minds), so the corollary action is to shame and bully the parents of the other kids into abandoning their kids the way the disinterested parents have.

That way, the state has better control over the education and advancement of all the kids, and can better achieve a more equal outcome. Because, of course, all kids are identical lumps of clay, with no differentiating features other than externalities, and too many “sculptors” might get in the way of the consistency of mass production.

Ask anyone who’s ever eaten a slice of pie whether mass produced holds a candle to well-crafted home-baked. Mass-produced is, however, what the end-goal is, and if it means squashing the better quality home-baked, they won’t shed a tear. Your children don’t matter to them. Only their self-righteousness does.

Peter Venetoklis

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.


Like this post?