 1. Compulsory schooling What then shall we say of laws imposing compulsory schooling on every child? These laws are endemic in the Western world. In those places where private schools are allowed, they must all meet standards of instruction imposed by the government. Yet the injustice of imposing any standards of instruction should be clear. Some children are duller and should be instructed at a slower pace. The bright children may require a rapid pace to develop their faculties. Furthermore many children are very apt in one subject and very dull in another. They should certainly be permitted to develop themselves in their best subjects and to drop the poor ones. Whatever the standards that the government imposes for instruction, injustice is done to all. To the dullards who cannot absorb any instruction, to those with different sets of aptitudes in different subjects, to the bright children whose minds would like to be off and winging in more advanced courses, but who must wait until the dullards are hounded once again. Similarly, any pace that the teacher sets in class, wreaks an injustice on almost all, on the dull who cannot keep up, and on the bright who lose interest and precious chances to develop their great potential. Obviously the worst injustice is the prevention of parental teaching of their own children. Parental instruction conforms to the ideal arrangement. It is, first of all, individualised instruction, the teacher dealing directly with the unique child and addressing himself to his capabilities and interests. Second what people can know the aptitudes and personality of the child better than his own parents. The parent's daily familiarity with and love for their children renders them uniquely qualified to give the child the formal instruction necessary. Here the child receives individual attention for his own personality. No one is as qualified as the parent to know how much or at what pace he should teach the child, what the child's requirements are for freedom or guidance, etc. Most all parents are qualified to teach their children, particularly in the elementary subjects. Those who are not so qualified in the subjects can hire individual tutors for their children. Tutors may also be hired where the parents do not have the time to devote the formal instruction of their children. Whether or not they themselves should do the teaching, or which tutor is best for their child, is best determined under the overall supervision of the parents directly. The parents can determine the progress of the child, the daily effect of the tutor on the child, etc. In addition to parental instruction and tutorial instruction, the parents can send the children to private schools. This alternative, however, is not as satisfactory because of the necessary lack of individual instruction and individual pacing. There are classes with many children, set times for courses, set grades, etc. The only reason for schools instead of individual instruction is the economic one, that the price of individual tutoring is prohibitive for most parents. Consequently they must adopt the only practical alternative of mass tutoring, where the teacher instructs many children at the same time. It is clear that such private schools are an inferior solution to individual instruction. Whichever pace the teacher sets, an injustice is done to many of the children. If the state enforces certain standards on the private schools, a far worse crime against the children is committed. For if the parent's selection of instruction is completely free and unhampered by state coercion, they, knowing and loving the child best, will be able to select the best type of instruction that they can afford. If they hire tutors, they will choose the most competent for their child. If they can select any type of private school, they will select the type which is best suited for their child. The advantages of unlimited development of private schools is that they will tend to be developed on the free market a different type of school for each type of demand. Schools will tend to be developed especially for bright children, for average children, and for dull ones, for those with broad aptitudes, and for those for whom it will be best to specialise etc. But if the state decrees that there may be no schools which do not, for example teach arithmetic, it would mean that those children who may be bright in other subjects, but have little or no aptitude for arithmetic, will have to be subjected to needless suffering. The state's imposition of uniform standards does grave violation to the diversity of human tastes and abilities. The effect of the state's compulsory schooling laws is not only to repress the growth of specialised, partly individualised private schools for the needs of various types of children. It also prevents the education of the child by the people who, in many respects, are best qualified, his parents. The effect is also to force into schools children who have little or no aptitude for instruction at all. It so happens that among the variety of human ability there is a large number of subnormal children. Children who are not receptive to instruction, whose reasoning capacity is not too great. To force these children to be exposed to schooling, as the state does almost everywhere, is a criminal offence to their natures. Without the ability to learn systematic subjects, they must either sit and suffer while others learn, or the bright and average students must be held back greatly in their development while these children are pressured to learn. In any case the instruction has almost no effect on these children, many of whose hours of life are simply wasted because of the state's decree. If these hours were spent in simple direct experience which they were better able to absorb, there is no question that they would be healthier children and adults as a result. But to dragoon them into a school for a formative decade of their lives, to force them to attend classes in which they have no interest or ability, is to warp their entire personalities.