a) There is actually a logic there. People are associated with counties, not jobs. If the Americans wanted to compete with China for jobs, they would charge less for their time, not move to China. The later makes no sense.
Originally Posted by pjorourke
It does make sense. You neglected the possibility that Chinese (and the citizens of any other country with which we have so-called free trade agreements) would move here. They already do - we call them illegal immigrants and H1B visas. For true capitalism to exist, the labor market has to enjoy the same freedom to market their skills where the free trade exists. Otherwise, the trade is not really free. The excuses for H1B visas are absurd. I'm a physicist and I can tell you that there is no shortage of physicists (or other highly skilled jobs). There is a shortage of highly skilled people who are willing to remain in jobs requiring their skills at the salaries they are offered. Rather than pay the market rate, companies, universities, etc., simply import the labor that suits them.
b) The premise is that all children are entitled to an education --the rationale being that this will produce an educated citizenry that will be productive. People without children get the benefit of that educated population in the form of goods and services the population produces.
I agree those are good things, but my point is that your argument (and the CATO institute's) is NOT consistent with a truly libertarian viewpoint.
The reason for vouchers is that public schools have a monopoly and have acted like all monopolies -- pushing costs up and quality down. Vouchers introduce competition and don't cost the taxpayer more
They have to cost the taxpayer more. Someone has to pay for what the voucher gives to those who receive them.
-- the vouchers are for less than the per student cost of the public school system. If half the kids go to private schools, half the public schools would close.
The public school system doesn't have the luxury of refusing to accept students. It has to be prepared to accept ALL of the potential students in the school district at any time. Private schools are free to pick, choose and refuse anyone.
I'm NOT a fan of the way public schools are run. I've taught at a university and had to endure thousands of students who did not have the background their high school classwork suggested. My argument is that libertarians are selective in their application of libertarian philosophy.
On the other hand, there are really NO universities that are truly private. For example, the DOE funds research everywhere, including the salaries paid to graduate students. If you are accepted for graduate school (at least in the sciences) at a university like Princeton, it's a free ride plus a monthly stipend. I'm not certain how the ``free ride'' is funded, but monthly stipends come from the research grants awarded to a student's advisor.
c) Big "L" Libertarians are a political party -- and a pretty ineffective one. Small "l" libertarian is a school of thought. I am a libertarian.
That's the first time I've heard that distinction.
Misguided for sure but not a liar! 
