Posing as realists, people who hew to conventional political positions regularly accuse libertylovers like me of being “impractical.” Apparently they believe that anyone who advocates abolishing laws and dismantling bureaucracies that interfere with entrepreneurship and voluntary behavior are idealists in the most derogatory sense of the word. From their perspective, we’re “out of touch with reality” and the policy changes we recommend amount to supercilious, utopian daydreams. So they say, so I’ve heard most of my life.
Those of us who deign to respond to such debate-squelching balderdash might point out that coercive public policies not only demonstrably fail but also produce harmful, unintended consequences. We might say, “Given your weak track record, would you at least consider no longer legally compelling the rest of us to suffer the costs and consequences of your coercive experiments? If you’re going to promise prosperity, shouldn’t you demonstrate some sincere interest in understanding the factors that make wealth creation possible and trade flourish? Perhaps the time has come to shed the pretense of appearing well-intentioned and to base your politics on unleashing entrepreneurial energy. Here’s an idea: Let profits and losses replace the preferences and whims of professional bullshit artists politicians and see what happens!”
In my experience, this plea is almost always met with a perturbed look and a mix of apathy and contempt. We live in a society that reflects that general response. Coercive public policies in education and health care and drug prohibition, for example, have failed for decades… decades, people… yet politicians continue to succeed in attracting enormous and ever increasing budgetary allocations, and the power of the State only expands. Realists apparently think that the most practical response to this is to rinse and repeat, but the definition of insanity (supposedly incompatible with realism) is expecting a different outcome from the same basic behavior.
•
Customs are hard to resist and habits are hard to break. In my experience, people customarily and habitually assume the default position of defending dismally performing bureaucracies based solely on moral appeals. Specifically, they consider the intentions of these state apparatuses appealing, and in the same way they get excited about politicians based on their promises. Educate all children. Health care for everybody. A drug-free society. A safer, freer world. Most people don’t advocate coercive public policies because they’ve thought them through or examined relevant data. In lieu of those activities, why do they support State-centric public policy and disparage market-based reforms? Having marinated in a culture of coercive public policies their whole lives, most people respond to them as if they’re comfort foods. More funding for public schools is like more butter on toast. It’s the promise they’ve heard before, expect to hear, and enjoy believing in.
Ample evidence that markets produce a marvelous diversity of goods and services? Never mind! Governments tend mostly to produce a diversity of disappointments and travesties, consistently falling far short of their promises? Again, never mind! For every professional politician making vainglorious promises about irresistibly well-intentioned goals, there are hundreds of thousands of people ready to endorse them on faith. Evidence to the contrary be damned, these people want to believe in a noble State that can do everything politicians say it can, and in defense of that belief, they will tolerate inefficiencies and wickedness, come hell or high water.
I can’t think of any obstacle to the progress of human civilization more intractable than the willingness of people to accept propositions as good and true without thinking about them critically, imaginatively, independently, rationally. What is more lethal to liberty and prosperity than the blind acceptance of coercive public policy?
Ergo, we live in a world in which, in the name of “practicality,” people accept that the the State can and should limit parents to one choice when it comes to their children’s education. Simultaneously markets provide thirty choices of tooth brushes and a hundred choices of video games, thousands of fashion choices, and dozens of choices of doctors. Few people find the absence of a robust market in school services ironic or disturbing. Throughout the U.S. today, people know this is “normal” and “realistic.” Yet, consider the following snapshot of the U.S.’s mainstream approach to education.
Approximately 40% of high school graduates lack the literacy skills employers seek. More than eight million students in grades 4-12 read below grade level (can sound out words but fail to comprehend what they read). Only 31% of America’s 8th-grade students—and roughly the same percentage of 12th graders—meet the National Assessment of Educational Progress standard of reading “proficiency” for their grade level. A mere 3% of all 8th graders read at an advanced level. High school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than high school graduates to be arrested in their lifetimes. (from reading.org)
In light of these indisputable facts, what would be the moral basis for allowing bureaucrats to make it difficult or impossible for new schools and educational options to arise anywhere in the country?
For decades professional politicians have won elections defending the public school system, pledging to devote more funding to it, promising shiny new reforms to improve outcomes. “Coming right up, sir!” And well-intentioned people have believed them wholeheartedly and voted accordingly and willingly paid higher taxes. The U.S. spends more per pupil than any other country in the world. And yet, even as the system fails generations of students— millions and millions of students receiving “passing” grades who cannot understand what they are reading!— still it continues to attract widespread support. Why? Because even though it is failing, the “promise” is decent and uplifting? In other words, real children’s educational experiences are being sacrificed on the altar of promoting a socially desirable fantasy.
This is… “practical?”
•
In the previous post, “you” were confronted with nightmarish service and food quality at a restaurant. Most people have severe reactions to such experiences, and most restaurants like the one depicted fail without much fanfare. People of all political stripes tolerate and even welcome the demise of such enterprises. It is common sense to celebrate the replacement of an ineffectual enterprise with one that is better suited to satisfy patrons. And yet, gauging by voting trends, the vast majority of parents in this country not only have no choices about the educational options available to their children but also are willing to support politicians who assert that the absence of competition and choice is somehow in their best interests. This is a tragedy on an epic scale. It is a consequence of the absurd idea that the power of the State can and should be used to preempt the emergence of markets in educational goods and services.
A culture that relies increasingly on the eloquently articulated hopes and promises of professional politicians will necessarily devalue and undermine the real producers of prosperity. For the time being, our culture has adopted a schizophrenic approach to this fundamental issue. All of us cherish the material benefits of markets, but far too many of us take for granted the principles and practices that make these benefits possible. In the area of education, the State’s role has been destructive and costly for a long time, and under Obama’s stewardship, that role is set to expand even further. He aims to implement universal pre-K education with a costly new licensing regime? Outrageous!
Some have depicted Obama’s election as a strike against apathy, but I would say that his triumph is more accurately construed as a monument to the American electorate’s deeply entrenched, reckless disregard for Reality and Responsibility. It is a sign that people are more willing than ever to concede greater power to the State at the expense of their liberty and wealth. That’s the faith-based thrust of virtually all of his promises.
The audacity of Obama’s “hope” emanates from his divertingly eloquent regurgitation of inherently flawed promises. Yes, it is indeed bold to stridently advocate the growth and expansion of the State’s role in education, bold in the sense of a person willing to stand in front of nationwide audience and identify himself with policies that have wreaked havoc and calling that “change we can believe in.”
Someday, enough people will dare to grasp what their faith in professional politicians’ pretenses of indispensability is costing them and the scales will tip in the favor of libertylovers at the expense of the powerseekers. Political promises based on coercive tactics will be considered conspiracies to commit criminal acts. And, at long last, markets currently suppressed by an unholy coalition of faith-based voters and petty diktat-obsessed bureaucrats will emerge and flourish.
{ 0 comments }
