Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools.

So you are predicating your voucher system on the notion that the government also stops regulating the private universities that accept federal financial aid, and that the government would exercise restraint and not regulate something that the Supreme Court says it has the authority to regulate... AND that the government should give "vouchers" to families without applying ANY STANDARD to the schools that accepted them, because parents can be trusted. I agree that parents can and should be trusted, but if there are NO STANDARDS WHATSOEVER on how the vouchers can be spent, then why do they need to be vouchers at all? Why can't the government just give stipends in cold, hard cash? After all, if there are no standards, then my Video Arcade Academy would qualify, and literally nothing couldn't qualify. If the government is defining what constitutes a "school," then it is regulating and some "schools" will not make the grade. But if the government is NOT determining what constitutes a "school," then the vouchers can be spent on anything; so again, why not just make them cash stipends? I think you've undermined your entire argument here. I do not believe it is a good idea to fund religious schools with taxpayer money -- but I don't think it's a good idea to fund ANY schools with taxpayer money. Nevertheless, the First Amendment is very specific and very limited. Vouchers do not violate the First, but they DO violate various state constitutions. You are wrong when you say those constitutions are overruled by the First Amendment, because the First Amendment is, again, VERY SPECIFIC: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It says CONGRESS shall make no law. It in no way applies to the states. The Tenth Amendment then says all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution does not prohibit the states from banning religious schools from receiving taxpayer money, and the First Amendment in no way applies. Point being: The U.S. Constitution in no way can overrule a state constitution banning public funding of religious schools. Thus, in addition to the other impossibilities your argument is predicated on, you have to add this one to the list -- passage of several state constitutional amendments. I do not accept the idea that, in the absence of involuntary taxation, there would be a substantial number of students who wanted an education but couldn't get one. You admit that an educated populace benefits society. Well, in order to receive that benefit, society will provide education, one way or another. It doesn't have to be through involuntary taxation. Whenever there is a need, the market will meet that need -- if the government gets out of the way and lets it work. Charitable foundations would establish free private schools, corporations would love the PR benefits of giving scholarships to needy and/or worthy students, and businesses would pay for the education of their employees as a fringe benefit, etc. You claim to be making an argument against public schools, which you admit are bad -- but you boost the idea of public education time and time again. As I have demonstrated here, the implementation of vouchers on a widespread scale would amount to the abolition of private schools, and the complete socialization of education. It would be just as it is now, except no one would be able to escape it, whereas at least some students are able to escape now.