[TuNeCedeMalis]

[ QUOTE ]
That's interesting reading. But not, as far as I can tell, an example of public education being orchestrated as a means of bolstering statism. Rather it's arguing that the state is the best means of providing an education for children, on subjects the authors feel will be most beneficial to them. Which is not a 'conspiracy' in any sense of the word, it's exactly what public education claims to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is in defining what makes education "best."

From the state's perspective, the best education is the one that produces the most cooperative citizens. From the people's perspective, there are many qualities which make educaitonal opportunities better or worse and the importance of each varies from family to family and person to person depending on their subjective preferences. This is a very different definition of quality in education than the state's.

I am not married to the word conspiracy. What I do believe is that most people simply accept public education as a fact of life and also as something "good." Because education is "good" and it seems fair that everyone should have a chance to learn.

I think most people fail to consider the degree to which allowing the state control of the schools necesssarially means forming the nation's youth into a common mold designed to bolster support for the state. I think they fail to consider the degree to which diversity in education is lost when the government takes control.

I guess my point is that when the government aims to provided education it is because of the state's desire to mold the populace in a paricular fashion....it is not to give consumers whatever type of learning opportunities they feel will be most beneficial.

So, for example, you will never see Murray Rothbard on the required reading list to be an accredited learning institution. As Boro said, this has a lot to do with why more people don't advocate AC.