The Acton Institute has a nice post on Calvin Coolidge and materialism. Coolidge was one of the few presidents to actually reduce the size and scope of government.

Coolidge was lambasted by political opponents and the intellectual class as a “tool of big business,” but he was deeply critical of materialism and profit for merely profit’s sake. While he is famously quoted as saying, “The chief business of the American people is business,” he is not as well known for another line in that same address where he said, “Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence.” He warned Americans against sinking into “pagan materialism.” Over his entire career, he argued that economic policies and taxation were indeed moral matters.

Support for free economics should be situated in a larger account of the whole of existence, which includes the moral matters of which Coolidge was distinctly cognizant. I wonder if we are presently capable of producing a politician with such an awareness.

Americans today have come face to face with a disturbing truth that those of us concerned with liberty have suspected for a long time. It has come to light that an official memo circulating within the administration justified drone strikes on American citizens suspected of terrorism as “legal,” “ethical” and “wise.”. The Memo, which was surprisingly revealed by Obama’s own state-run media, laid out the rather vague circumstances in which un-manned aerial aircraft can eliminate someone without a trial, without due process, and even without intelligence as to whether or not they present an imminent threat to American national security. The official DOJ white paper can be found here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And it is my controversial contention that Obama and his justice department’s blatant violations of the V, VI, and VIII (not to mention his disdain for the I, II, and most of Article III) qualifies as a high crime.  Still, I doubt he will be impeached until his followers in the media abandon him.

Of course, one is likely to accuse me of hyperbole, over-reaction, and irresponsible impulsivity. Fair enough. Let’s hear your argument then, shall we? First, who cares about the rights of terrorists! They hate America, would happily kill other American citizens, and would probably be given the death penalty anyway. Why not save some time and take them out? Second, why are drones objectionable when presumably the only lives lost are those of the enemy? Sure, a civilian may be in the wrong place at the wrong time now and then, but these are risks we all have to take. Third, if we do not keep up the drone warfare, other countries will get ahead of us and use them against us. They will prey on our “weakness.” Fourth, drones can be used by the private and public sectors to run surveillance and enforcement in ways that would otherwise be cost prohibitive and difficult to do in any practical manner. This is especially true in policing America’s borders and enforcing land use regulations.

Well said, my friend, but at the end of the day I am completely unpersuaded. First, by making exceptions to the rule of law for the killing of American terrorists who do not present an imminent threat to U.S. national security the terrorists ultimately win. Our fear of them causes us to abandon the very law that upholds and orders the liberty we are meant to defend. I believe this is more important than killing terrorists for some illusion of national security. And indeed, it is certainly an illusion.

Second, the extraordinary number of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes in the Middle East and elsewhere has inspired and created more terrorists than it has killed.

Third, we could just as easily produce anti-drone technologies as the drones themselves. Why not scrap them for the sake of liberty, instead of throwing liberty out the window for the sake of a false security? Yes, other countries will take advantage of us. But I disagree with the assumption that the best defense is a good offense. The best defense is the best defense.

Fourth, the use of drones by the private sector and by regulatory agencies is terrifying. Who honestly believes such power will not corrupt as it always has? Consider the story of Plato’s Ring of Gyges or Tolkien’s Ring of Power. The premise is no different. We, as fallen human beings, do not possess the moral compass to wield this authority and should therefore run from it.

The drones do not defend liberty, but undermine it at every turn.  This is why Obama so enthusiastically supports their use, why he views the Constitution more as a suggestion and obstruction than a law, and liberty more as a problem than a fundamental basis of human personhood and dignity. He, along with Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder among others, should be impeached  and removed from office for the good of the union, for the promotion of peace, and for the sake of a truly ordered and enduring liberty.

It will be said that my words are uncivil, ungenerous, and unbecoming of deliberative democracy. Indeed they are, but the enemies of liberty feed on such  reservations. Violence is not the answer of course, the rule of law and Constitutional democracy provide all the necessary tools for overcoming the enemies of liberty and order. We need only have the courage, moral discernment, and will to use them.

In some of the most uplifting news I’ve heard all week, 72% of Americans oppose the Federal government arresting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, according to a recent Reason-Rupe poll. 68% of respondents also said the Feds should not arrest those who grow marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and 64% of respondents said the same for those who sell marijuana. All of these activities are still illegal under Federal law, but the citizens of these states don’t care. Neither, apparently, do about 2/3 of Americans.

So much for nullification of federal laws being outside the political mainstream.

Of course, for those within the ranks of the Republican Party who support breaking up the hegemony of national power, there is still significant work to be done. Back in November, a CBS News poll showed that only 35% of Republicans believe the President should allow Colorado and Washington to effectively nullify federal drug laws.

What’s most important here is not whether conservatives think smoking marijuana is itself a good or a bad thing; what’s most important is that they recognize that living in a federalized system necessarily entails allowing citizens of other states to control their own destiny. The Constitution leaves the state governments responsible for exercising the “police powers”: looking after the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their citizens. There is absolutely nothing within the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to exercise any authority here.

If constitutionally-conscious conservatives are waiting for the perfect time to strike that first blow against the federal Leviathan, this may be it; 72% of Americans will stand behind us when we do.

So, my previous post was very ranty and not all that helpful in developing and driving the discussion forward. In its self-indulgence, I suppose I out myself as a wanna-be academic. Or blogger. So, let me take this post to provide a more straightforward position.

I agree with what one reader, Lanny, said in response to one of the earlier posts: the problem is not moral relativism, but rather the problem is system-wide confusion. It is, in a way, knowledge relativism as a result of an education system that would not be universally standardized. Localism is a nice dream, but rather useless, if the locals don’t know anything. If there is no consistency in education or standards from one family of homeschoolers and the next, then there is a risk of resulting in a nation full of conservatives. Some Protestant. Some Catholic. Some Muslim, Some non-religious. Perhaps a few liberals will be produced. The point is that the result will be pluralism in the most absurd definition of the concept. And this pluralism may not in fact be a good thing, but rather it may be of bad consequence because of the self-regulating and radically private nature of a system that reserves not only the responsibility of civic virtue, but also the responsibility of education, to parents by virtue of their  not being a part of the public school system.

The public and private education systems may need improvements, but that is not an argument for me teaching my children math and science (or english grammar, for that matter). I think we take for granted that it is easy to actually educate students to be knowledgeable human beings and citizens, by our cheerleading for homeschooling and other radical responses to a system that, while broken, I don’t think should be abandoned.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have the skills to teach science to children; and, as much as I would like to believe it, I don’t think that any children I have will be able to survive and thrive in this world armed primarily with their proper upbringing and moral education supervised and provided by their parents. Conservatism just doesn’t have as much purchasing power as calculus. Perhaps there are those out there who would disagree.

Yet, we are to believe in the inherent superiority of homeschooling to public schooling – and other forms of schooling – not by appeal to subject matter expertise, or even tradition; rather, the argument for homeschooling rests on the persuasive power of a conservative trope.

I remain unconvinced of the case for the superiority or necessity of homeschooling, though I am open to the existence of a right to homeschool.

First, there is the risk of creating an unstandardized system of knowledge; it is a risk for relativism or at least inequality as a goal, not simply as a possible side effect. So not only traditional school subjects may be at the risk of the the particular homeschooler, but even those ideas that make up the very core of our country may be at risk. The failure to disseminate those values that constitute “America” I think is high. That would seem in practice to be a system of relativism that is radically individualistic and stripped of the community orientation that is supposed to be a hallmark of conservatism.

Second, if you want to fix the school system, don’t leave the public school system in order to restore a local and decentralized control to education. That local and decentralized system already exists. It’s called a school district. Get involved. Your children will thank you someday.

Third, in spite of the existence of the Department of Education – and the conservative claim of centralization – the primary institutions responsible for funding and oversight of American children’s education reside at the state and lower levels. That is to say, the localism that conservatives desire already exists.

Fourth, though there are many problems with the education system, overall it’s not doing that bad. At least, I don’t think it is bad enough to justify a mass exodus toward homeschooling in response to our education woes.

To conclude, the answer to our public education crisis (to the extent that one exists) may not be a return to localism (we’re already there). Rather, a more robust response from the federal government may be an effective first step. Homeschooling doesn’t strike me as a “public policy” Americans should get behind. Yes, I recognize that the system needs to be improved, but am I in the minority of conservatives? I say, give the teachers a chance.

In his response to my remarks about homeschooling, Ben has taken the debate into a direction and sophistication that is welcome. I hope my response can meet him at this new standard he has set.
I acknowledge that the original essay to which Ben is responding leaves much unstated and too many assumptions implicit rather than spelled out; it was early in the morning and I was on a tight schedule (I’ll take whatever excuse I can get). That said, in my response, I will try to rectify the deficiencies and sloppiness that he has correctly called me on. I guess I have a lot of work to do.
Ben begins his response by observing the haziness of many of my statements and that a central point in my essay hinges on some hazy language. He singles out my claim that homeschooling leads to a “fractured civic ontology.” It’s a string of words which would have made more sense had they been “fractured social order” or “social disunity”/”cohesion” or something less pretentious. Oh well. This is a blog. Pretentiousness is an essential ingredient. That’s my defense and I’m sticking to it.
And he’s absolutely right to state that Heidegerrians and Cartesians coexisting in some pluralist society is something about which I could give a rat’s behind. But I think that being on a philosophically inclined blog (with an audience that, I presume, shares our inclination), I needed to go with something a bit “deeper.” We’re philosophically-oriented folks who use terms such as “tradition” and “historicism” like it’s our job, yet it’s “ontology” at which point we draw the line and say “hold on here. Let’s avoid that silly jargon”? I find that hard to believe.
So, what do I mean? When I use a term like “social ontology” I suppose I mean the structure, including the content, that undergirds and forms the country. It is the unobservable (or unobserved) order that defines the country. I suppose that we can observe it and know it – (operationalize it and study it?) – indirectly through our references to physical and non-physical entities such as flags and statues; creeds, motos and ideas; and institutions of government. This list is, obviously, inexhaustive but hopefully it pushes forward this discussion and provides further sources of contrast and debate.
Ben is correct in his speculation that the definition of “civic culture” that I use corresponds to a “classical,” small-r repulican definition. I would disagree with Ben’s inference that my view of education prioritize civic awareness/inculcation over education as such. I view education as the primary purpose of the public education system; in addition to that, I think that the inculcation of these cultural particulars is within the appropriate scope of the system, too. So, at this part of the discussion, I view there being two roles of the education system, and not necessarily exclusive, either. The primary role is to actually educate (however we define that; a definition would be useful. Perhaps Ben or someone will be able to provide one with which we can work). The second role is to transmit this civic culture, with its implicit and explicit values.
I agree with him that the primary conservative concern is reducible to which civic virtues are being inculcated; I would like to know what “conservative” civic virtues would be; would they or would they not correspond to the civic virtues of the American polity as it existed historically or as it exists today? Rather than strictly theoretical speculation, we have to take a step down and wade into the swamp of the empirical observations that are “conservative” and “civic virtue.” Because, frankly, we don’t know what a set of conservative civic values would be, let alone the relationship between those values and the values of the public education system. That makes it difficult to discuss this with any eye toward the practical activity of critiquing the present culture and replacing it with a restored “traditional” culture that somehow is closer to the western, judeo-christian heritage that we are supposed to be fighting for.
Unfortunately, it is around this point that I think this is where Ben’s critical response goes off the rails, so to speak. The rest of his response presupposes that my view of the purpose of education prioritize the transmission of civic culture over the education of the children.
Ben is correct that I do not make explicit the assumption that the public education system is a better source of learing civic virtue than the parents/family unit. That’s because I don’t hold such a view (side note: reductionism is not apparently the unique purview of rational choice theorists). I think Ben needs to provide some type of evidence for his claim that instilling public and private virtue “is undeniably one of the major reasons parents choose to educate their children at home.” Here is one source that may provide some support for his speculative claim that instilling virtue is a reason, though it would seem to only indirectly support his claim.
When I discuss the potential for extremism, I am stating only one of the potential criticisms of homeschooling. There are others, listed in a the wikipedia entry referenced in my original post, which I will post in this blog entry

Inadequate standards of academic quality and comprehensiveness

Lack of socialization with peers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds

The potential for development of religious or social extremism
Children sheltered from mainstream society, or denied opportunities such as social development
Potential for development of parallel societies that do not fit into standards of citizenship and the community

Extremism is but one of the risks associated with homeschooling. There are other risks which touch upon academic well-being and the social cohesion and values that Ben and I discuss in our posts.

Contrary to Ben, I do not see the positive effect of homeschooling to be the introduction of pluralistic values into a society. In fact, I see the opposite effect, if the studies are to be believed. You don’t even have to reference emprical data to reach that conclusion; all you have to do is read what Ben writes in order to figure out what why his argument is internally inconsistent (in its logic). It boils down to how plurality is weighed or conceptualized. Ben emphasizes the centrality of the parents (as members of the family unit), while I am looking at it from a perspective that, I think, is pragmatically understood (in this discussion) as structural

I think a major problem with Ben’s argument is that his argument presupposes the existence of more mainstream education systems (public and parochial) which exist parallel to the home schoolers, which would provide the necessary foil to produce the outcome that Ben relies on in order to justify the pluralistic value of homeschooling. But, in his critique he seems to imply that pluralism is not the goal of home schoolers; rather, the goal of home schoolers is to instill in their children-students a view of the world that is explicitly contrary to the mainstream or majority view of American society. If we take this homeschooling to an extreme, then we risk a country/civilization of individuals on, for or with whom we cannot build a society. This is because these different home schoolers have sets of beliefs and related manifestations which are so diffuse, that anything resembling a common set of values which can be used to develop a social order would be unfeasible.

Surely, the problem is not reducible to the phenomena that the children will not encounter views that contradict their parents’ own, right? I think it is safe to assume that no two families hold the same views, so even when home schooled, the children-students will encounter views that are contrary to their parents. What Ben seems to be suggesting is that plurality down to the level of individual families is preferred and provides the necessary foundation for a healthy, vibrant and developing political order. I don’t think that it does. This is because if this homeschooling inspired pluralism is fully embraced and logically developed, then the result is a society of individuated families, each with their own views and not being open to the other, which would preclude the development of the type of social order that conservatives would want. We can speculate that the home schooler is a conservative and would share and participate in a value system that the individual conservatives would collectively share, but we would be risking a lot for a theory that, unlike other
theories, we have usable data to determine the propriety of the theory. To simplify it: we’re still left with conservatives battling the status quo. We still have to determine whether or not conservatives are in the right to home school. Or that we’re right about why conservatives choose to home school.

That said, I’m not buying the whole mind reading thing. The result of this kind of behavior, contrary to Ben’s implication, would not be a more open society in which pluralism would be a benefit; rather, the result would be a more closed society, of which pluralism would be a hazard. The children-students would be exposed and inculcated at very young ages against the variety of views that fit outside of the parents (or homeschoolers’) worldviews. The world is not limited to particular christian or conservative sects; yet, I suspect that is what would be te result. A society full different and sometimes contradictory sects. How do you build a society on that?

I don’t think there is an “obvious double standard” with my argument. I would like Ben to make more explicit his reasons for suggesting that there is a double standard in my argument. As for my view that my problem is not with pluralism, but rather with the permissiveness of what I think to be the “wrong” view: I disagree with that as well. I would like it if Ben would expand upon that speculation. Until then, it has no support.
How is it morally confusing for conservative children to be “thrust” into environments that differ from the ones from which the come? Presumably, the conservative parent will have prepared – or will be prepared – to protect their child from the negative effects of the public school environment. But, the question that arises is, what are those negative influences/effects from which the conservative child must be protected? Is the culture that bad – that progressive and contrary to conservative values – that the conservative must resort to homeschooling – to separating his or her child from the larger environment – in order to properly educate and guide the child? It would seem that the spotlight should be shone upon the conservative, and not the public (or parochial) school system. What is it that the conservative has – except for conservatism – to support the home school movement?

I disagree with the assertion that Ben makes, which is that the fractured civic ontology “totally precludes us from teaching moral values to our children, but it is wholly unclear why this should be the case.” It does not completely shut out parents. Parents are free and obligated, I think, to teach the moral values that they believe their children should learn.

So we are left with why the broad, institutional forms of education (public and parochial) developed in the first place.

I think logically that there has to be a limit to the home school movement; there has to a logical limit to the conservative embrace of this movement. I think there are two ways to interpret the argument Ben posits. Neither of these ways is positive for the homeschooling movement. One is to reduce it to its rationalistic, individualistic core – which is fine, if we recognize that it sits on a number of assumptions that may or may not be real (and we conservatives seem to pride ourselves on our realism); the other is to assert that what we are talking about is real. But then we have to contend with the fact that the “facts” may not comport to our narrative. So then who is right? The conservatives, or the facts that conflict with their realism? If we are to be historically sensitive and speaking of something that is “real,” then we have to be more philosophically and empirically aware than we are. I do not think our criticisms of the culture can survive otherwise. (and please for the love of God, do not anyone bring up Thomas Kuhn unless you want to include his post structure stuff. the same goes for anyone else).

__________________________________________________________________________________

To me, at least, much of Ben’s response is in the realm of speculative theorizing. It is out the desire to be victorious, which is a lost cause. I think that a better response would be one that would make use of the data from various sources which detail the positive and negative effects of homeschooling. I think we conservatives have a duty to step away from the “conservative” theory – and the language – and enter into an engagement with the available evidence that exists on the topics about which we are concerned, and which are discussed here on the blog. Too often we have conversations with ourselves. And that only marginalizes us.

That said, I am not opposed to homeschooling. Neither am I opposed to private or public schooling. As a product of private schooling, I am grateful for the type of education I received. As a citizen of this country, I try to be sensitive to the public good that education is and the implicit conservatism that the idea of local public education can be, even if in practice it is far from it. I appreciate what Ben has done in his response; I know that my response is not up to the level I want it to be, because it does not adequately answer the criticisms that Ben provides. That, to me anyway, indicates a strength of the conservative case. Or it may just be indicative of Ben’s brilliance and my intellectual sub-parity. Anyway, I hope that contributors and readers alike will recognize the value in this type of exchange. It forces us to refine our theoretical and empirical points and places matters such as causality; at the foreground of the debates we have with each other; it sharpens conservatives and conservatism. It gets to the meat of the matters and forces us conservatives to take a long and hard look at ourselves as we attempt to respond to a society that is always escaping our grasps.

Conservatives need to do better than just to theorize. But we don’t seem to do better than that. At the end of this long-winded and irrelevantly linked blog post, that’s all I’ve got.

The disastrous American fiscal and financial practices that have produced massive annual budget deficits, an enormous national debt, and the increasing certainty of rising interest rates, inflation, and default raise the important question of the desirability and necessity of significant policy change.  It is commonly argued by both self-styled conservatives and critics of conservatism that the conservative approach to statecraft mandates adherence to the status quo and precludes drastic alterations in governance.  Although generally eschewing sharp deviations from existing policies, conservatism does not categorically oppose dramatic changes in all circumstances.  This essay will briefly explain the conservative approach to statecraft and why it is not incompatible with radical change under exigent situations.

There are several premises of philosophical conservatism that are relevant to the question of whether substantial change is fundamentally incompatible with the conservative disposition toward public policy.  The first is the belief that the universal is an inexhaustible source of inspiration for human action which cannot be fully and comprehensively articulated or known by individuals.  Although knowledge of the good, the true, and the beautiful is certainly possible, final and complete comprehension of the transcendent is beyond human attainment.  As a result, conservatism is highly suspicious of ideological systems which purport to possess universally applicable blueprints for social and political order.  Conservatives are strongly opposed to policy prescriptions based upon abstract principles regardless of whether they support or oppose the status quo.  However, dislike for ideologically motivated innovation or preservation does not mean that conservatives are categorically against all reform.  Instead, the recognition that the universal is not completely exhausted by any existing political order renders conservatives amenable to prudent reformation.

The second is the belief that the universal is discovered or revealed in the particular or historical realm.  Individuals encounter concrete instantiations of the good, the true, and the beautiful in the best of historically evolved traditions, customs, and precedents.  Consequently, conservatives generally grant deference and respect to longstanding practices which have an observable record of success.  However, conservatives are also profoundly aware that many social institutions and practices are deeply flawed and require improvement.  As a result, conservatism is not necessarily opposed to the alteration of existing social structures so long as the proposed changes can be justified by concrete evidence.

The third is the belief that human reason is fallible and limited.  Although reason is an important faculty for reflecting upon and categorizing concrete human experience, it is insufficient for constructing whole political and social orders.  While human reason may be instrumental in discovering inadequacies and deficiencies in political society, it may also provide erroneous and inaccurate assessments and solutions which, if implemented, could constitute civilizational retreat rather than progress.  As a result, conservatism is cautious about attempts to reform political society and generally favors limited and incremental rather than drastic and immediate change.  If attempts at reform prove problematic, small changes cause less damage and are easier to repair than massive alterations.  Nevertheless, conservatives recognize that uneasiness about change does not translate into adamant and unqualified opposition to all attempts at improvement—even radical ones.

The fourth is the belief that real solutions to concrete problems are best derived through intimate familiarity with the particulars of a given situation.  As a result, authority for prescribing solutions to problems is proportional to knowledge of the situation in which the difficulty arises.  The concrete circumstances not only determine whether change is appropriate but also the necessary magnitude of amendment.  Although conservatives tend to be skeptical of significant alterations—especially ones based upon ideology or ahistorical rationality—they recognize that certain conditions may require drastic measures to avoid great evils.  If the current practices are sufficiently defective, and if the consequences of continuing the status quo are sufficiently disastrous, it is consistent with conservative philosophy to call for drastic measures to avert or mitigate a crisis.  Conservatives recognize that in certain situations, the consequences of preserving or slightly changing the status quo may vastly outweigh not only the perceived consequences of substantial change but also the inherent risks of radical amendment.  However, the amount of historical evidence necessary to justify enormous change is usually quite high and thus situations of this type are unusual.  As a result, conservatism is not categorically and irrevocably opposed to drastic change in all circumstances.

The fifth is the belief that social and political reformation should be rooted in the totality of a whole tradition spanning centuries rather than in the past few years or even decades of political practice.  As Peter Viereck argues in The Unadjusted Man, conservatives adjust to the archetypes of the ages rather than the stereotype of the present age.  In order to avoid the assumption that the present period possesses a monopoly on wisdom, conservatism tries to consider all the evidence presented by human history.  As a result, conservatives may reject a significant trend which has developed in a given political society over years and decades as inconsistent with the concrete evidence found throughout the vast experience of history.  Thus, the demand for a significant change is not necessarily inconsistent with conservatism.  It may be conservative to reject a major development within a tradition and it may be profoundly anti-conservative to support the status quo.  The ultimate determination of whether an action is conservative depends on the basis for accepting or rejecting a policy and not on whether the acceptance or rejection constitutes opposition to or support for change.

In conclusion, although producing a disposition against radical change, the premises of philosophical conservatism do not mandate absolute opposition to all dramatic alterations of current social practice.  Instead, several key principles of conservative political thought are incompatible with categorical and ideological denunciations of all significant change.  The question of whether conservatives are able to support significant deviation from the immediate past is relevant to the present American cultural, social, ethical, economic, and financial condition.  Since the United States faces crucial problems in each of these areas, radical amendment of existing practices and institutions may become not only advisable but also unavoidable.  If conservatism is construed as advocating categorical opposition to all dramatic change regardless of the circumstances, it will fail to prepare individuals for action in the real world and thus become irrelevant if not detrimental to good civilization and constitutional order.

Chuck O’Shea has written a provocative post in support of the ascendance of homeschooling in the United States. While I don’t take issue with the article he quotes, I disagree a bit with the reasons he gives as to its importance. His reasons are positive. I will, briefly, provide contrasting (negative) reasons that highlight the importance of homeschooling (these can be found through <wikipedia, so have no fear).

Most serious for those on this blog, homeschooling potentially threatens our civic culture. If the civic culture is eroded, then how are we to instill the moral values and demonstrate the superfluousness of the state education system? We won’t. We will create a fractured civic ontology, which will lead to a plurality of cultures, which will manifest itself in a relativistic society. So, homeschooling leads to relativism (in a few steps).

There is nothing “essential” to the health of the society which would necessitate that families control education in the form of homeschooling; if a family feels it necessary to pull out of the public school system, then there are parochial schools which can do that job, and come with less of a risk of the anarchic relativism that is inherent to homeschooling. Homeschooling, then, is essentially repeating the same function that private schools already perform, but with far more politicization and far greater risk of insulation and insidious civic destruction.

As for the “variety of viewpoints that emerge” in a homeschooling system: only if they talk to each other. Otherwise, it would seem to be a recipe for extremism.