Duncan made this comment on a blog post of mine the other day:

Everyone has an agenda. Arguments that lapse into name calling - bastards, arseholes and/or Nazis - are immediately awarded a large question mark. Am I being informed, misinformed or manipulated? 

  And I responded thus:

...yes, you are right, everyone does indeed have an agenda. I think I am pretty clear about mine: I care about freedom, I write because I enjoy it and I use this blog as a platform to order my thoughts. I appreciate that you might not like the way that I think or write and that might cause you to question what I say. That is a good thing! I hope that you do that with whatever you read, regardless. I certainly do. When I read something, whether someone uses potentially offensive language or 16 pt Helvetica is largely irrelevant: I think about the ideas behind their words and assess whether they make sense to me and my world. If you choose to read my blog you are certainly being informed about my opinion, and if you highlight misinformation or cause me to reconsider my opinion then I will welcome it. I write here to order my thoughts. But let's be clear about one thing - I am not manipulating you. If you are manipulated by what you read here then you are responsible for allowing it to happen. Don't ever take my word for anything: always work it out for yourself.

 I've been thinking about this issue since we had the exchange. My musings have been fuelled by what Roberto Sarrionandia had to say here about the spreading of ideas, not to mention an absolutely fascinating discussion on the AHEd lists about libertarianism and the way to human freedom. 

After watching this committee meeting and reading this document, I need to sit back and take stock for a couple of weeks. I do not have the words to describe how strongly I object to the government staking a prior claim over me, not to mention the bodies and minds of my children - so I need to do some reading and thinking to find a better vocabulary. I get so angry about the way in which people are routinely subjugated and that can come through in my writing. This is my blogging space and I have to feel able to say what I think, but the last thing I want to do is to deliberately alienate readers who don't come from the same place as me from considering the nature of liberty. It is too important for that.

I am, however, a firm believer in this quote from Barry Goldwater: Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue - so don't expect things to change too much.

I was going to write about David Cameron's piffle: the promised "brazen elitism" that will see only teachers with good degrees being allowed through the school gates to teach children.

Happily, bella gerens has done it for me - do go and read why this is a very bad idea:

People of Britain, do you want fewer teachers? Do you wish to have teacher:pupil ratios of 1:45 across the land? Do you wish for huge schools operated by huge education authorities and staffed by teachers in huge teachers’ unions who can command ever higher and higher salaries and perks for their members as there is more and more work to go round and not enough teachers to do it?

If you answered yes to all of those questions, then good for you: because that’s exactly what you’ll get...

...So: in a country where people don’t want to be teachers, quality of education is not a priority, and historically the government’s stance on the profession is to bribe people to enter it, the solution is to make it even harder to become a teacher?

Good luck with that, Dave.

It won't come as any surprise for anyone who know that learning, and not exams, is the most single important outcome of education. Those of us who understand that our children can learn better from unqualified worldly experience than from first class honours world ignorance will be shaking our heads with dismay. It should, however, come as a warning.

If the Conservatives reintroduce the traditional, top-down, standards-driven, teacher-led model of education, then that review of what constitutes a "suitable" education will be hugely valuable to them - and they, just like their predecessors, will expect all to be bound by it, leaving the ability, aptitude and any additional needs of individual children wide open to misunderstanding, misinterpretation or misdiagnosis by a third party (your friendly local authority officer or Ofsted inspector, for example). 

Good education is the right of the many not the privileged few.

is what Cameron had to say today, so you can expect that he will make damn sure your children will get what they are "entitled" to: a "good" education according to a political party's accepted definition.

And that is why the fundamental importance of formal education is the biggest lie you will ever be told; why education should not be a "right" the state is required to enforce; and why state democracy is nothing more than the rule of mob.

But what do I know? I'm just the parent, right? Unless I am talking about The Waste Land or La Chanson de Roland, perhaps I should sit down, shut up and let the experts decide for me...

However. There was a glimmer of hope on this post today on Liberal Democrat Voice. Amongst the illiberality so beloved of certain Lib Dems, a commenter, wavering on the edge of reason, tentatively articulated something that is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS to those who see it before their eyes every day as their children grow up and learn in the real world, surrounded by real people living real lives, having real relationships and doing real jobs:

The differences between the requirements for home and institutional schooling are fascinating.

As I understand it, home educators do not have to be qualified in any way. They don’t have to follow any particular curriculum or devote a set number of hours to any subject. The children do not have to sit any tests or exams. The local education authority has no right to visit the children in their homes or see examples of their work.

Contrast this with the regulation that surrounds institutional, and particularly state, schooling.

Yet both practices are accepted as fulfilling the parent’s legal duty to educate their children.

Are these differences fully explained, and necessitated, by the contrast between a domestic and an institutional setting? I can’t help wondering if home education is incredibly lax, or if institutional education is incredibly prescriptive. (I suspect the latter.)

Paul Griffiths, bingo! You are 100% correct! You have started to unpick the biggest lie you were ever told. Now, why don't you keep unravelling and see where it leads...

Ed "all your children are belong to us even if you don't want to send them to nursery or school" Balls has accused the Tories of 'social engineering' because they are planning tax breaks for married couples.

Well, yes, I can kind of see how this might be loosely described as social engineering; perhaps some couples will indeed be persuaded to change the status quo and marry by the prospect of keeping a little more of their hard earned cash. Will they be more likely to stay together? Probably not. Is it even desirable when two people are living together in misery? Who knows?

But some small solace is that the Tories won't be resorting to Ed's bully boy tactics and forcing anyone get married. As someone who is happily unmarried to the father of our two children, I feel pretty confident that we will be left free to pursue our unmarried lifestyle, if we so wish, without undue harrassment from anyone other than a few disgruntled relatives.

I am certain that no arsehole from the council will come round to our house, assess us according to some deeply unpleasant and questionable standards, and then demand that we submit 2 A4 sides of wedding plans within a certain timeframe. Likewise, said arsehole will not return and insist that we produce our wedding certificate to demonstrate that we have indeed acted in accordance with our submitted plans, or else be forced to split up and live in separate homes for the remainder of our years.

No, that's what Ed would do, isn't it? Perhaps he got confused.