Even with multiple children, the kids get far more one-on-one time with their parents. Also, older ones often teach the younger.

My daughter (who was home-schooled) is teaching five children. I once watched my granddaughter teach her younger brother the alphabet; she was 3 years old at the time, he was 18 months old. In fact, every time I visit, I hear somebody teaching somebody else. They love learning, and they love teaching.

As John Holt mentioned, the most important thing is that the home is not a school. There are no formal classes; no desks; no clocks - nothing that gets in the way of learning.

On one visit, I noticed a grandson poring over a map of the States. I asked him to find where I lived. I then asked if they had a globe, and very briefly showed how the paper map corresponded - and did not correspond - to the globe. (Alaska and Hawaii were shown on the paper map in different places than they were on the globe.) I asked him to locate New York City on the globe. It took him just a few seconds. While doing so, he explained the idea of correspondence to his elder sister. He was 5, and she was 7.

You may think home-schoolers only get the easiest students, but you'd be wrong. Very often, students who don't fit into the traditional mold - the ones which cause teachers to tear their hair out - are removed by caring parents, who are motivated to find an approach which works. The problem may be simple boredom. Don't you ever question a theory which says that all children of a certain age must learn everything at the same pace?

There are many home schoolers with autistic students. While you ask for "combat pay", their parents figure out what works. I know of one in particular, who is now three years old. One "expert" patiently explained that he was "mentally retarded." Another "expert" diagnosed him as autistic (probably on the mark) and prognosticated that he'd never be able to speak; he'd be using a book of picture cards for the rest of his life. Well, his mom taught him the alphabet; he learned to read, and now speaks English, Russian, and ASL. He also counts by 2s and 5s, sings with perfect pitch, and plays music by ear. He's 3 years old now. Learning the alphabet, reading, and speaking in that order might be highly unusual, but it worked for him.

Every home-schooler is different. Many are "average", but many others would drive the average teacher stark raving mad; government schools are unable to deliver on the promises of "universal education;" to do so would mean dedicating a single teacher to one or a few students. This would be highly inefficient, when the students already have a motivated parent.

Government schools are also unable to adequately teach the gifted. I have a grandson (a 2nd generation home-schooler) who, by the age of six, enjoyed playing with negative numbers, decimals, fractions, division, exponents, binary arithmetic, and cryptography - hardly your typical first-grade topics. Now, at the age of 9, he studies algebra, trigonometry, and computer programming. In a regular class, he'd be bored out of his gourd, and probably drugged into a compliant stupor.

The socialization argument stems from thinking that home schools must be like government schools, but in a smaller box. Home schools are very, very different. When a teacher wishes to take children out of the government- or private-sector box, it is a complicated process - the field trip must be approved by upper management, permission slips must be obtained, transportation must be arranged, chaperones must be recruited, and so forth.

When parents wish to undertake field trips, the process is much simpler: take a walk or pile into the minivan. Therefore, field trips are frequent; children have many opportunities to explore the world and to mingle with others of all ages. When home-schooled children go to the museum or other destination, they are usually part of a small group and interact one-on-one with a large variety of competent adults.

What if it was posted by a 3rd party, seeking to cause trouble for both the Paul and Hunstman campaigns? An Obama or Romney operative, for instance? Just sayin'. Cui Bono?

I'm still googling, but can't find the actual poll results, only 2nd hand reports. Any help appreciated. Thanks!

I have had a long-running dispute with Georgists for several reasons. One, it practically requires a State, which is a negative in my opinion. I do not want a State collecting the so-called "full land rent" for their nefarious purposes. Second, if they achieve their goal of making all land equivalent in cost, there will be no basis to compute the best use of land.

Third, as you have mentioned, the problems attributed to landlords are largely problems which should be laid at the feet of the State.

Lastly, even in a Lockean world, provided that there is no State, absentee landowners would bear the full cost of defending their property. If it isn't worth defending, they'll stop occupying it. The Georgists' major objection will simply vanish.

It takes years of coercive indoctrination to produce those so-called "natural serfs."

In addition to all the criticisms about the food taxes, they are shooting at the wrong target, at least in America. Shifting from neighborhood schools to mega-schools meant depriving children of the natural exercise of walking. While few of us "walked 20 miles, uphill both ways", it was very common for us to walk a mile or two each way, every day - a simple, effective exercise routine which helps keep weight down. When I visited Amish country in Lancaster County, I saw no fat children. There are no school buses to the Amish schools; children walk or use old-fashioned scooters.

We need more money because it worked so well in the Weimar Republic and in Zimbabwe.

I am fairly certain that Alan Weingarten was quite tongue-in-cheek, so I gave his post a thumbs-up.

If widely-distributed monetary inflation really were "neutral", it would be pointless. Since it is not neutral, it leads to numerous negative side effects. It's real hard to find a good reason to counter the negatives.

Years ago, I came across a book called "My Story", by a distant cousin known as Paddy "the Cope" Gallagher. Paddy grew up as a very poor boy in a tiny town, much like the "company towns" we have been warned about; a few very powerful landowners, originally installed by the violent force of the Brits, tightly controlled access to the market. Paddy's innovation was to start up a co-op - a competing store which would sell goods at lower prices. It's a long story, but among other things, he bought and sold handmade sweaters from the local girls; he offered them higher prices than they had gotten before; he bought a ship and built a dock and got better prices in Britain for their handiwork. That town no longer was controlled by the big landowners; people had more choices, better wages and a higher standard of living, thanks the heroic efforts of a man who started with nothing more than his wits and will.

He did all of this in spite of violent opposition from "gombeen men" (thugs) sent by the landlords to shut down his co-op. The police did what they usually do in company towns: nothing useful.

I relate this story to relate that people do have choices, even in "company towns", even against the opposition of the government.