People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice
Subscribe

Suprisingly, some perfectly respectable people have apparently read this blog.

December 15, 2011 By: John Kindley Category: Uncategorized

Jay P. Greene’s Blog, which is focused on education policy, gives me a hat tip in a post by one of his friends, Greg Forster, titled “Choice Is Not Chaos.”

On the topic of education policy and the subject of Greg Forster’s post, I’ll quote Thomas Jefferson again, who in 1810 wrote in a letter to Judge John Tyler:

I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength.

  1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.
  2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.

But this division looks to many other fundamental provisions. . . .

And in 1816 Jefferson wrote in a letter to Joseph Cabell:

If, however, it is intended that the State government shall take this business into its own hands, and provide schools for every county, then by all means strike out this provision of our bill. I would never wish that it should be placed on a worse footing than the rest of the State. But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further, and amend the bill so as to commit to the governor and council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants’ stores. No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.

Albert Jay Nock explained:

The common view of Mr. Jefferson as a doctrinaire believer in the stark principle of “states’ rights” is most incompetent and misleading. He believed in states’ rights, assuredly, but he went much farther; states’ rights were only an incident in his general system of political organization. He believed that the ultimate political unit, the repository and source of political authority and initiative, should be the smallest unit; not the federal unit, state unit or county unit, but the township, or, as he called it, the “ward.” The township, and the township only, should determine the delegation of power upwards to the county, the state, and the federal units. His system of extreme decentralization is interesting and perhaps worth a moment’s examination, because if the idea of the State is ever displaced by the idea of government, it seems probable that the practical expression of this idea would come out very nearly in that form.

Leave a Reply

*

  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine