Educational Freedom; S. Bixler

SCOTT W. BIXLER THOSE WHO CHAMPION the case for freedom are often confronted with criticisms of the ethics of the free market system - charges such as "free enterprise encourages selfish materialism," and "the av erage consumer doesn't know what is good for him," or even "the free market ignores the poor." The economist must often step outside the boundaries of pure economic theory in an attempt to show that the free market does not lead to these consequences. One accusation frequently heard is that the free market inade quately provides certain important services. The reasoning usually is as follows: 1) The free market leads to consequence A, Mr. Bixler, a recent graduate of Grove City College, has entered a management training program at Union Bank and Trust Company in Erie, Pennsylvania. 2) This consequence is unde sirable, 3) Therefore, the free market should not be permitted. As with any syllogism, a valid refutation must simply prove con clusively that the major premise is false. Economists have for many years been doing exactly that in their analyses of criticisms of the free market. For example, it was often contended that the free market caused business cycles and unemployment. This charge was thoroughly refuted by Ludwig von Mises who demonstrated that bus iness cycles are caused by govern ment intervention in the area of bank credit expansion. He ex plained that unemployment is caused by union or government action to keep wage rates above the free market level. He also showed that only coercive inter vention, not private spending, can bring about inflation.

451 452 THE FREEMAN August The science-of economics pro vides no ultimate ethical j udg ments. It can only provide the data necessary in order to make such judgments. Pure economic theory involves the relationship between ends and means: how man uses scarce resources for satisfy ing his most urgent needs. It pro vides man with certain laws which are true regardless of whether man's ends are altruistic, egoistic, vulgar, or refined. Today, how ever, with the preponderance of "welfare economics" and the cor responding interventions in the economy, the economist must not only explain the workings of the market, so that people may indeed frame their value judgments, but must also comment on the conse quences of various ~olitical policies. Therefore, when those who make government policy maintain that a certain coercive intervention will bring about a corresponding re suIt, it is up to the economist to explain the consequences of that policy. By doing this he cannot advise as to the best possible route to pursue to achieve certain ends without committing himself to those ends. Thus an economist who is hired by 'a businessman commits himself to the ethical valuation that increasing the businessman's profits is good. Similarly, an econ omist hired by the government to advise bureaucrats on the most efficient means of "stimulating the economy" is committing himself to the value judgment that inter vention is desirable. Mises reflects on the relationship of the econo mist and government: . . . economics as such is a chal lenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and dema gogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his ob jections are well founded, the more they hate him.!

We need not attempt here to determine whether the motives of those who make political policies are good or evil. Let us assume that their motives are good; that they are truly concerned with the well-being of each individual. On that basis, let us try to demon strate how the policies conducted in one area, tha t of education, cannot possibly bring about the ends sought by those in power . It will be assumed that those who favor the present state-run com pulsory system honestly believe that this is the best possible sys tem for education. We cannot as sume evil intent, but must rather hope that through logical reason ing it can be shown that the pres ent, system is indeed unworkable, 1 Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1949), p. 67.

1975 EDUCATIONALFREEDOM 453 immoral, and thus totally incon sistent with a truly free society. Self.responsibility the Key Let us first look at one maj or argument that not only is used as a defense for compulsory educa tion, but is also applied to many other areas of government inter vention. This is the charge that individuals ,do not always know their own self-interests best; and since this is supposedly the foun dation upon which the case for laissez-faire rests, the state must intervene and any argument for the free market is invalidated. But the argument for the free market rests on a much more complex doctrine. While it is impossible to eluci date here all the many arguments for freedom, what can be asserted is that everyone should have the right to be free to pursue his own interests as he deems best. It is folly to contend that consumers are never mistaken as to their best interests. But on the free market they are able to hire and consult with experts to give them advice. Those experts (doctors and lawyers, for example) whose ad vice proves most successful will reap the rewards, while poor ones will fail.

The government expert, on the other hand, acquires his fees through compulsion. There is no market test of his success in ad vising people of their own best interests, but only the test of his ability to curry political favor. Also, the government expert has no incentive to really care about his "clients," as he is paid regard less, whereas the private expert has every conceivable incentive to look out for his client's interests. This leads us to the one fatal contradiction into which all pro ponents of government interven tion are trapped: they assume that individuals do not know how to run their own affairs, or to hire experts to advise them, but yet are competent enough to elect of ficials who do know what is best for them. Presumably, all voters are eminently qualified to elect their rulers! Perhaps the most trenchant ar gument used by those favoring public education is the belief that "everyone has a right to an edu cation." A close examination of this doctrine exposes its totali tarian implications. This "right"

to an education enta.ils the forced redistribution of income from some members of society to oth ers: the robbing of Peter to pay Paul. Goods and services are not free. To say that one has a right to an education is to believe that some individuals are entitled to at least a portion, if not all, of the fruits of another man's labor. It 454 THE FREEMAN August requires the existence of a group of exploited people who are to be coerced into providing the enu merated "right." Taking this argument to its log ical conclusion provides a power ful indictment against public edu cation. Since a person's education is not strictly limited to his formal schooling, if one has a right to an education then logically he should have a right to virtually all educa tional media, including newspapers and magazines. An individual's education is an ongoing process that continues throughout most, if not all, of his lifetime.

There is little doubt that most people would react with horror if the government were to set up a national newspaper chain and com pel all people to read them. In ad dition' what would be the reaction if the government outlawed all other newspapers, or else gave authority only to those that ad hered to certain standards set by a government commission? Clearly this would be a gross violation of the freedoms of speech and press. Nevertheless, this is exactly what has been established in the area of education. It is evident that scholastic freedom is not regarded as important as freedom of the press. But are such value judg ments reasonable on the part of policy makers? Surely one could make a case for educational freeJdom being the more important, as it is in this area that the unin formed minds of children are involved. A similar refutation of the argu ment for redistribution of income for compulsory education is pro vided by E. G. West, who draws an analogy between education and food: Protection of a child against sta r vation or malnutrition is presumably just as important as protection against ignorance. It is difficult to envisage, however, that any govern ment, in its anxiety to see that chil dren have minimum standards of food and clothing, would pass laws for compulsory and universal eating, or that it should entertain measures which lead to increased taxes or rates in order to provide children's food, "free" at local authority kitch ens or shops. It is still more difficult to imagine that most people would unquestionably accept this system, especially where it had developed to the stage that "for adm1J1.istrative reasons" parents were allocated those shops which happened to be nearest their homes. 2 In addition, if one believes that it is right to take a certain per centage of the fruits of a man's labor through property taxes, why not take all of it for use in educa tion ? Undoubtedly there would be 2 E. G. West, Education and the State (London, 1965), pp. 13-14.

1975 EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM 455 great achievements in education if this were done: modern schools, highly paid teachers and adminis trators, and thus "better educated" students. Similarly, why force an individual to attend school for only eleven years ? Wouldn't it be far better if the government would force all persons to go to school all of their lives? Americans would truly be the most educated people in the world! The Parent or the State? Unquestionably the central issue is quite simply whether the parent or the state should exercise ulti mate control and responsibility for the upbringing of the child. There is no middle ground on this ques tion, as no third party has ever been proposed or found with the authority to seize and rear the child. I would contend that the parents are the natural overseers of the child. They are the literal producers of the child and are thus bound to him with ties of love as well as responsibility. Wro else but the parents know best the individual interests and needs of their children?

The alternative to parental re· sponsibility is state control. What are the results of this alternative? Again it is helpful to analyze the nature of private versus govern ment management of certain un dertakings. As we have pointed out, it is inherent in the nature of a bureaucracy to be inefficient and unresponsive to consumer demand. Government must seek to impose a uniform set of rules throughout its jurisdiction. If it did not, surely the people would charge discrimination and special privi lege. All taxpayers must be treated alike. Such is the predicament of the public school bureaucrat. In deciding the exact pattern of for mal schooling in his area, he must choose between different, and often controversial, alternatives. Should the schools stress liberal arts or vocational training? socialism or free enterprise? religion or secu larism? Should they be integrated or segregated? Certainly there will always be at least some par ents and students who will not receive the type of education they desire. Hence, the inevitable con flict which is inherent in any system based on force. The more that government decisions replace private decision-making, the more the various groups of parents will be at each other's throats in order to supplant standards with their ideas of proper methods.

We see this conflict today, not only over questions of what is to be taught, but also over the issue of forced busing of students. Here is abundant evidence of govern ment attempts to bring about uni formity and equality in the educa456 THE FREEMAN August tional system. Protests and demon strations over the busing question are commonplace. One wonders, however, if these same parents see the glaring inconsistency of their position. A substantial majority oppose busing, but forget that they also vote to force others to pay for their children's education and to force all children to go to the schools. In this light the ques tions of forced busing, or the use of questionable textbooks, seem relatively minor. How can they conceivably favor the potential use of physical force against students who do not wish to attend school, while at the sa.me time believing it is wrong to bus students for the purpose of achieving a racial bal ance? This is undou~tedly a double standard of the most flagrant order.

Can we be surprised that gov ernment education leads to con flicts and violence in society? After all, since the schools are "public property" aren't the peo ple who have paid taxes the real owners? Shouldn't they then be allowed to exercise their right of control over the running of the schools? Indeed, a defender of the concept of public property is hard pressed to justify bureaucratic control over property for which the taxpayers have been forced to pay. In reality, the, idea of public property or common ownership is erroneous. It implies that every citizen owns an equal share of property which is publicly owned. But no individual owns any part of public property. If one doubts this fact then let him attempt to claim his share and try to sell it, and then have this upheld in any court. As F. A. Harper points out: The corollary of the right of own ership is the right of disownership.

So if I cannot sell a thing, it is evi dent that I do not really own it. 3 Thus all public property is simply the property of the rulers in power in the government at any one time. They alone have control over it and are the real owners of it. How can we expect the public schools to teach the virtues of private property? Their very ex istence is based on aggression. The child is indoctrinated from an early age with the philosophy of collectivism, or the virtue of "ma jority rule." Individuality is su pressed in favor of equality. In the words of Murray Rothbard: By imposing uniformity on the teaching of its charges, no matter 3 F. A. Harper, Liberty, a Path to Its Recovery (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1949), p. 106.

1975 EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM 457 how pure its intentions, the state begins the process of supplanting individual will with the will of the group, the collective conscience, the majority force. The majority, of course, is represented institutionally by the state and its leaders. Through this process the doctrine of obedience to the state comes to be stressed above all else. Tyranny is not the natural state for the free spirit of man. Tyranny must be learned, while diversity, spontaneity, and independ ence must be eradicated. 4 Mrs. Isabel Paterson also com ments on the tyranny of compul sory state education: ... every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the divine right of kings or the "will of the people" in "democracy." Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an al most superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey ... A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. 5 Still another powerful argument 4 Murray N. Rothbard, Education, Free and Compulsory (Wichita, Kansas: Center for Independent Education, 1972), p. 11.

5 Isabel Paterson, The God of-the Ma chine (New York, 1943), p. 257. against compulsory ed uca tion deals with the parent's control over the child's associates. Those who can't afford to send their children to private schools or hire a tutor, must send their children to a public school. It is in the public school where most of the children are found who would not be there if it were not for the compulsory attendance law. In cluded are uneducable children, juvenile deliquents, and the like. Thus the state forces the parents to have their children associate with these types, regardless of the wishes of the parents or the chil dren. In addition, those children who are unsuitahle for, or. unin terested in, the type of schooling presently available, and who would be much better off at home or working, are forced into school, making it worse both for them and the other students. Incredible though it may seem, some people actually think that this is the outstanding virtue of public education. Exposure of all children to "all types of humanity"

and the forcing of all children to learn about "life" is heralded as the great egalitarian goal of "pro gressive" educators and intellectu als. When confronted with this type of thinking it is indeed dif ficult not to deviate from the as sum:ption that those making policy decisions are, truly concerned about 458 THE FREEMAN August the welfare of the individua1. This is especially true when one exam ines the writings of people such as Calvin Stowe, a mid-nineteenth century "educational reformer" who compared compulsory educa tion to military duty: If a regard to the public safety makes it right for a government to compel the citizens to do military duty when the country is invaded, the same reason authorizes the gov ernment to compel them to provide for the education of their children - for no foes are so much to be dreaded as ignorance and vice. A man has no more right to endanger the state by throwing upon it a fam ily of ignorant and vicious children than he has to give admission to the spies of an invading army. If he is unable to educate his children the state should assist him - if unwill ing, it should compel him. General education is a much'more certain, and much less expensive, means of defense, than military array . . . as education . . . is provided by the parents, and paid for by those \vho do not profit by its l'esults, it is a duty.6 As stated previously, the at tempt here is to prove, through reason alone, that public education is wrong in principle and thus inconsistent with individual free6 Calvin E. Stowe, The Prussian Sys tem of PubUc Instruction and its Appli cability to the United States (Cincin nati, 1830).

dam. While forced to admit that state education is a major step toward tyranny, we must not di vert from the central thesis of beneficial intent on the part of policy makers. For the moment we must hope that a clear and logical delineation of the arguments both for and against state control of education will provide a clear pic ture that allows the individual to make a rational choice. We must be optimistic that most people will turn away from the current ide ology and be able to foresee the inevitable result before it is too late. Sadly, however, most people do not even stop to think that there is an alternative to the present compulsory system. They believe that without a "free" education system based on coercion, the re sult would be some kind of new Dark Age, with the nation sinking into ignorance, crime, and violence. The assumption is that many peo ple would not continue to desire an education. This ties in with the aforementioned argument of knowledge of self-interest. It is not logical to assume that the educa tional system, if left to the free market, would degenerate or be of inferior quality. To hold this belief is to also hold that without public garbage disposal, most peo ple would leave their garbage ly ing around in the streets!

1975 EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM 459 What kind of educational en vironment would exist if tax dol lars were not used to support schools and if students were not forced to attend? In considering this question it is interesting to note what relative freedom has done to provide Americans with the highest standards of living in the world. Today Americans choose from an assortment of automo biles, food, entertainment, and so forth that people one hundred years ago would have thought im possible. Television, cars, and mod ern communication networks came into existence, not because of, but in spite of government interven tion in the market. It would be illogical to believe that freedom in education would have produced anything in any way similar to today's poorly-run state monopoly system. Letting the market function un hampered in educat,ion would most likely produce an explosive and enthusiastic growth in the number of private voluntary schools. Par ents would be free to send their children to trade schools, right wing schools, left-wing schools, church controlled schools, "pro gressive" schools, or whatever type for which there was a sufficient demand. Those which satisfied their customers would flourish.

Those which did not would have to close. We have analyzed most of the major criticisms of a voluntary educational system as well as the various arguments for a continua tion of the present system. We have tried to show that the cur rent public education system is inconsistent with a free society; that instead of hastening educa tional progress, it has actually led to stagnation and conflict. Implicit in this analysis has been the most important question of all. This is: which system provides the most efficient means of satisfying hu man wants - the free market, or statism? Coercion or Voluntary Exchange? There are two ways for man to satisfy his needs: through the use of coercion (the threat of violence or force) , or through freedom (the process of voluntary exchange). The science of economics provides man with the knowledge necessary to make the choice between these two alternatives. It tells us that the free market maximizes effi ciency and productivity. There is mutual benefit. Every man gains because his gain is precisely the consequence of his bringing about the gain of others. Everyone earns according to his ability to satisfy consumer desires. There are in centives for production and a gen eral rise in the standards of living.

Under statism, the individual 460 THE FREEMAN August earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers of goods and services. There is the ultimate destruction of incentives and the lowering of living stan dards. One gains only at the ex pense of others. No attempt to disregard the in exorable laws of economics in any way invalidates them. This is why Mises is correct when he states that the economist will always be the "mischief maker" with dema gogues, for they are always re luctant to admit that they are subject to economic la.ws. Wha t answer shall we give to this ultimate question of freedom or statism? Mises leaves us with a sobering thought as to our decision: The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foun dation upon which modern indus trialism and all the moral, intellec tual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused.

But if they fail to take the best ad vantage of it and disregard its teach ings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race. 7 In the final analysis then, we must make our choice between freedom and tyranny. We must choose between harmony, prosper ity and order on the one hand, and conflict, poverty and chaos on the other. For this writer, the choice is clear. ~ 7 Mises, Ope cit., p. 885. IDEAS ON LIBERTY By Better Example THOSE WHO EFFECT GREAT REVOLUTIONS are always small in num ber. Such people need not wait to become a majority. No one else can do the job except those who understand what needs to be done. The disruptive influence of political centralization in education will continue until it has been overshadowed and rendered mean ingless by a moral force of sufficient intensity, a force generated by individuals who understand what is at stake and who serve notice by their own example that a better way exists to educate our young.

GEORGE C. ROCHE III, Education in America NOONE I KNOW would consult a tailor -about personal surgery or a surgeon about suit tailoring, an architect about drafting a will or a lawyer about preparing house plans. In this age of specialization, few would choose to be operated on by a general practitioner rather than a surgeon. People tend to hire lawyers who specialize on the mat ters on which they need advice. The modern world demands a high degree of expertise. Why then are we so willing to allow eminent ly unqualified people to have a voice in the development of land? The experts and authorities in this field are the builders and develop ers. While there are limits to their knowledge, they surely are far more expert at their business than those engaged in other pursuits. Yet more and more, paradoxically, zoning requires builders to submit their proposals, for final decision, to the public and its representa tives.