Likely those taking exception to my 'Part I' would do so, if not solely because, at least in part because of my readiness to abandon efficiency and productivity in my view of the freedom necessary for education.
By 'freedom necessary to' I mean, not that education happens only or best when it is free - which is to a great extent true; I mean that it is a violation of right to impede the free pursuit of knowledge as (it seems to me) all Western Governments do, to greater (Quebec, Germany, etc.) or lesser (U.S. and Alberta) degree.
I think people would readily agree that education should be free, until they realize that it implies the free inquiry into all presuppositions, and not just those ones that you don't care about. It means to examine forms of government, kinds of religion, and even to question whether homosexuality is healthy and good. People love to be liberal about things they don't care about.
It's a different case for families. Many today assume that the family answers to the government, not the reverse. This assumption is based upon a further presumption that there is a clear right and wrong in education, from which only imbeciles and religious people dissent. It is assumed that the state should enforce this view of right by whatever means - including education.
Is it better to live in a country that does not interest itself in the propagandization of its citizens or not? Is it possible not to and sustain a sophisticated industrial economy? It might not be possible, but that does not mean that that economy be sustained at all cost - including the violation of human rights in self-determination with education. I imagine that the better country would not propoagandize its citizens.
Some one needs to make decision about the formation of children. They cannot form themselves. The question is, what measures ought to be applied, because some must be applied. The standard is not the upholding and advancement of the state economy, as it has been the standard in play since Louis XIV, thanks in no small part to one Sir Francis Bacon (not even the Romans had such a cynical view of human life, and, hence, of the end of the state).
Is the end of education productivity or the development of the mind towards an appreciation of all things human and natural? The latter can include the former, but is by no means principally directed to it. The latter is better a thousand times over.
I do think it best that children be raised in homosexual households, nor even taught that homosexuality is morally, psychologically and physically healthy. I would not, however, even had I universal power to bring it about, automatically remove children from such settings. In some cases I would; likewise are there cases when I would remove children from a heterosexual environment. I do not believe that I would even automatically remove children from homes that teach that nazism or satanism are good things. Am I only saying in order to protect my fundamental right to education my own children as I see fit? Possibly. You'd have to check in with me again were I ever to be made emperor of the universe. My feeling is that to remove children from the nuturing homosexual environment to which he was accustomed would constitute grave harm. The defense of the family lies in the goods that are intrinsic to it. If some of these goods are found elsewhere, they cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Orthodox Catholic families who put their children in jeapardy because of a serious drug problem require intervention. Yet for as much as I think that homosexualism is harmful, I do not believe that anyone has a right to interfere with such a case for this reason only. The family is sacrosanct, and thus the default position ought to be interference only for grave reason. Now, to create a family for homosexuals by means of adoption, I am against, and this for this very same reason that the family is sacrosanct.
What all of this implies for education is clear enough. States must interfere with family educational choices only in the gravest of situations. Even if it were not true that homeschooling was on average vastly more successful than institutional schooling - even if it were much less efficient - this would not constitute grounds for state interference. Were a state to interfere in such a case it would be the result of the law of efficiency and not the result of any philosophically defensible view of the good. As I've said, the law of efficiency is illegitimate. The law of efficiency would gravely violate the rights of the members of that family.
More soon. Pax vobiscum.