Indeed. Not least because we take resources from people like her, and force them to pay for a government schooling infrastructure they don't use. We make her pay for her kid
and ours; combined with the fact that the middle and upper class neighborhoods get the nice public schools while the poor ones get the crummy ones, it's one of the many ways in which we take from the poor in this country.
Respectfully, this is a shift in goalposts - I did not say
all could. I disagreed with you when you claimed "
the vast majority of families cannot handle homeschooling, not effectively".
....No. Without the ability to actually lose funding, there is no actual competition.
Apply this rule to
any other service and see if you would accept it:
If, say, Republicans passed a law tomorrow, saying that, even if you don't eat at Chik Fil A, you have to send them the monetary equivalent of what it would cost you to feed your family for the year.... would you accept the counter that "well, Chik Fil A is still competing with groceries, and other restaurants, so, this is fine". ?
Of course not. In that scenario, Chik Fil A would be "using the coercive power of the State to force revenues from people", not "gaining those revenues by competing for people's business".
Because claiming that a market in which one actor has a guaranteed massive income from the ability to tax the others is "competition" is ridiculous.
Or, consider how the incentives in that structure are the exact opposite of a competitive market:
If Chik Fil A in a real market starts serving a crappier product, to the point that they lose 10% of their customers, that hurts Chik Fil A because it sharply reduces their income.
In contrast, if a public school system starts serving a crappier product to the point that 10% of students got pulled out of the system and sent elsewhere, but without vouchers following them, that benefits the school administrators, because now they have larger relative budgets. Their incentives are the exact opposite of the incentives provided by market competition.
Nope. Government funding for children's education is for educating children. The purpose of the funding is not to ensure that we have more government, it's to ensure that kids get educated.