What will Republican-controlled legislatures and boards do when Muslims or Satanists or atheists want government money to start their own charter schools? Will they then have to decide which religions or denominations qualify for state funds?

Are religious conservatives naïve enough to think that government funds will come with no strings attached? He that pays the piper calls the tune.

by Laurence M. Vance

Although the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the concept is based on the First Amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Down through history, the union of church and state has resulted in great evils. Even today, in the twenty-first century, some countries have state religions or state churches. This includes not only Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia but also “Christian” countries like Norway and the United Kingdom.

Although they differ on the exact meaning and extent of the “separation of church and state,” most Americans — from the irreligious to the devout — oppose the United States having an official religion. They also prefer that the government not take tax money and give it to religious institutions.

Yet, when it comes to the subject of education, most Americans not only see a role for the government: they believe in the union of education and the state. What makes this even worse is when religion is involved.

Some religious conservatives are celebrating the establishment of the nation’s first religious charter school. I am not, even though I am also a religious and cultural conservative.

Charter schools are public schools. They are publicly funded schools managed by independent boards under the terms of a contract or charter with a state or local governmental authority. But they are still public schools that have to follow federal antidiscrimination laws; state academic standards, curriculum frameworks, and testing requirements; as well as provide education at no cost to pupils or parents. According to U.S. News & World Report, “Roughly 8% of public school students are enrolled in charters, according to the latest federal data, and even fewer, 1%, are enrolled in virtual charter schools.”

This past June, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter Board, by a 3–2 vote, approved the establishment of the nation’s first religious charter school. The St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is a joint project of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. The initial vote in April was 5–0 against establishing the school. The school’s charter application specifically states that it will “operate the school as a Catholic School.” Members of the board are appointed by the state’s Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, a supporter of religious charter schools, and the state’s GOP-controlled legislature.

“This is a win for religious liberty and education freedom,” said Stitt. Yet, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond reproved the governor in a statement: “The approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers. It’s extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars. In doing so, these members have exposed themselves and the state to potential legal action that could be costly.”

The CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Rachel Laser, likewise said in a statement: “It’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation’s first religious public charter school. This is a sea change for American democracy.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

These words were the opening statement of a White House executive order by Joe Biden to save economic freedom in theory by limiting it in reality through government intervention.

Government rules and regulations bear heavy costs on businesses in many ways. For example, many states require companies to purchase workers’ compensation insurance even if the business is one employee (the owner) and he pays himself almost nothing. Instead of benefiting the new business, government helps subsidize the larger businesses. Likewise, some areas charge businesses license fees for the privilege of working out of their homes. As the lists and requirements go on, so do the costs and the time to make sure you are in compliance. And if something is out of order, more capital resources are wasted through fines, and time dealing with these issues is time spent away from running the business.

https://mises.org/wire/government-imposed-competition-harms-competition

Daniel Kowalski

“A fair, open, and competitive marketplace has long been a cornerstone of the American economy, while excessive market concentration threatens basic economic liberties, democratic accountability, and the welfare of workers, farmers, small businesses, startups, and consumers.”

These words were the opening statement of a White House executive order by Joe Biden to save economic freedom in theory by limiting it in reality through government intervention. Biden is right that competition is the cornerstone to a prosperous economy, but the best way to promote competition is less regulation instead of more of it. When business decisions are up to bureaucrats instead of actual business owners accountable to their customer base, it’s the consumer who will lose the most.

Inefficiency of Efficiency as a Policy

Two of the most successful businesses in American history are Standard Oil and Walmart. They became that way because they were relentless at being the most efficient in their businesses. As both companies grew, they expanded their operations into new ventures, but these were services and products whose purpose was to support the main business. This is known as vertical integration.

Standard Oil manufactured their own barrels and railroad tanker cars instead of purchasing through a third party because they were able to make a better product for themselves at a lower cost and were able to save overhead on the markup that a supplier would charge.

Walmart created their own distribution network that was exclusive for their store’s use. They used their own trucks and drivers to deliver stock to and from their stores instead of relying on someone else. This efficiency that they created from being their own distributors also had the compounding effect of improving how they managed their inventory, which meant that not only did they have low prices but also always had stock.

These two examples led to both companies overtaking their competition and increasing their market shares for their industries. Standard Oil acquired many of its smaller competitors in the oil refining industry with the results being that many people working at the acquired firms received jobs with Standard Oil, and the price of oil fell during their growth because they passed their efficiencies on to their customers through the lower prices they charged. Today the company is remembered as the original big bad monopoly, but its negative reputation doesn’t match the facts.

Kmart was America’s largest discount chain as Walmart was growing. Walmart not only went on to become number one through their superior business practices, but Kmart today is now practically out of business. That is how things are supposed to work in a free market, but today’s politicians feel like they have the need to regulate this because it’s not fair to the business owners that ended up losing the game, despite making a lot of money as they played it.

Instead, today there would be calls for Walmart to spin off their distribution centers, and we might later find out that those politicians received donations from Kmart. Or there might have been regulators preventing the Standard Oil drums and cars being used because they weren’t from an approved third party. In each of these hypothetical situations, the government would be promoting competition but through fragmentation, and the cost of this would be greater inefficiency, less innovation, and higher prices for consumers.

Small Businesses Can Compete against Behemoths

See the rest here

Be seeing you