First, I?d like to point out that for anyone who has read Hayek very extensively it is quite clear that to be a consistent Hayekian you have to be quite inconsistent in your positions on a number of issues. It is certainly no surprise to see that Hayek?s views on the slippery slope nature of government intrusion and his views on public education collide.
I am amazed at the extent to which a collectivist ideology has infused John?s views on education. First he talks about it being in ?the taxpayer?s interest to be involved in some way in financing?education to the young.? I?m not sure what the ?taxpayer?s interest? is or even what the expression means. People will voluntarily support what they believe to be in their interest. People only have to be taxed to support things that other people believe to be in their interest but they don?t. I think John is using the term ?taxpayer? as a euphemism for the state. The number one taxpayer interest is to keep as much of their hard earned money as possible to be used for those things that they believe are in their interest.
John also asserts, without any argument or evidence, that ?the market does not capture the non-vocational benefits of an educated population.? Why wouldn?t it? Where?s the evidence? Do home schoolers, and private schools not care about these benefits? Do these institutions not care about whether kids are cultured, well read, politically astute, etc. And why would anyone expect a government-financed system to be more concerned about such things than parent financed system operating through the market place. If parents are concerned about these things then so will be the market place. I would also like to point out that the externality argument, endorsed by John, is based on an incoherent economic theory. It depends on the government being able to define efficient outputs and ultimately suffers from what Hayek (here he is again) called “the pretense of knowledge.” To use the theory in a public policy setting to justify the kind of interventions that John desires, you would have to have perfect knowledge regarding the efficient allocation of all resources in the economy. I know John’s smart, but he’s no omniscient central planner.
John goes on to say that the goal of free marketeers should be to introduce choice, competition, and private initiative into the system.? I disagree. The goal of free-marketeers should be to introduce freedom and truly free markets into the system. Choice, competition, and private initiative will be a by-product of this. If these three results are to come about efficiently they cannot be centrally planned.
I think John refutes his own argument in the next paragraph. If public education is supposed to be a bulwark against an intrusive welfare state, it hasn?t been very successful. Maybe that?s because it is part of the welfare state.
John also states that for him ?failure to provide a sound, basic, education,? would be an ?extreme case of parental neglect? justifying state involvement in financing schools for those children.? Let?s assume that John?s definition of ?parental neglect? and ?a sound basic, education? is somehow objectively determined and widely accepted. This only argues for government involvement with those kids. This is clearly not an argument for universal compulsory education or funding for everyone. By the way, why is the probability higher that this same ?neglected child? will get a ?sound, basic, education? in a state financed system?
John next goes to ?refuting? an argument he in general is ?impatient with.? John states that if [free market education in the 18th and 19th centuries] were ?generating higher rates of literacy than we see today, why was there such a political constituency for public education?? Let me follow up with some questions of my own. If free trade works so well to promote prosperity and productivity why has there been such a political constituency for protectionism? If free market health care up to the 1950s or so produced such great results why is there such a political constituency for socialized medicine? If a free price system works so well to generate adequate and affordable housing in NYC why is there such a political constituency for rent control laws? If freedom of contract in labor markets works so well to allocate labor and see to it that those who want employment can get it why is there such a political constituency for minimum wage laws? Finally, if free markets didn?t do so well in producing a literate society, where is the data?
Finally, John gets around to addressing my actual point, namely that vouchers will lead to the regulation of private schools. Oddly enough, he makes no attempt to refute my argument. First he claims, anecdotally, that private school educators support vouchers. I?m not sure why that is relevant even if it is true. The fact is that, at least initially, vouchers will allow them to access state money and to raise tuition on existing students. Since most private schools are strapped for cash, my guess is the money looks pretty good to them. This is why they will find it difficult to resist the regulations. Home schoolers, by the way, are almost universally against vouchers. John then goes on to argue that we need to take ?care in drafting legislation and designing school-choice mechanisms.? Well I think that the founders took care in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but that didn?t stop the supreme court from recently trampling all over the first amendment, it hasn?t stopped the EPA and the Interior Department from trampling all over our 5th Amendment rights to private property,,, When it comes to protecting our liberties the ?taking care to design the legislation properly? approach does not have a good track record.
