let it be resolved that education should be left to the market

A direct market is better than a voucher system. Why would you want to add a layer of bureaucracy and government control over what you inherently accept should be a market? The voucher system - although still a bad idea - makes sense when you have a state monopoly on education, as a means of freeing the market. It doesn't work and it's a bad idea, but at least it makes sense. What possible explanation can there be for having this system without a state monopoly on education? Why would parents pay taxes then have those taxes put into a voucher system when they could simply pay the schools directly? The first problem with my opponents suggestion is that taxation is theft (or more exactly extortion). You are having the government threaten taxpayers with violence in order to fund this absurd scheme. It's immoral to use force to get what you want. The only just way to interact is voluntarily. On the other hand if parents just paid schools directly that is completely voluntary. No use of violence or coercion involved. Why should someone with no kids be forced to pay for the school system? in a market they wouldn't have to. The second problem is it would be inefficient. If schools could charge the government, instead of having to charge parents, there would be no competition to keep costs down. There could still be competition on the grounds of quality (presuming the government ALLOWED schools to compete on quality, historically they have not, they have dictated that all schools must have the same curriculum, that all schools must be roughly uniform, and there is no reason to believe this will ever change) but there would be no incentive towards cost saving innovation. Finally my point about only government approved schools receiving the funding still stands. My opponent even admits this while attempting to rebut it. Thus those who want to educate their children in a manner of which the government does not approve will be forced first to pay for everyone else's education, and then if they can afford it, to have their kid educated in the fashion they wish. On the market parent's would have total choice. Schools would innovate constantly - just as electronics companies do today. There would be a renaissance in education the likes of which is scarcely imaginable in our present government monopoly system. A market in education would benefit the poor most of all. It's not a big deal for the elite if they must first subsidize public schools before sending their children to private schools - after all, they are the elite, they have money to spare. But what of the middle class? The poor wouldn't suffer at all under my proposed system. Now it's likely the children of the rich would receive a superior education, since their parents could pay higher tuition and enjoy lower class sizes, but the innovation and competition in a market in education would benefit everyone, not just the elite. We all suffer from the inferior results delivered by our government monopoly on education. We would all suffer from the higher costs and faux competition of my opponents system. It is only true market competition between interested participants that we will see the best results.