Just to clarify my point about government and education that Roy ridicules: to say that there are aspects of education in a free society that rise to the level of a public good is not to suggest that it is possible to know the precise, optimum amount of education goods to produce. It is only to observe that because there is no market for citizenship, as contrasted with the market for paid labor, it is unlikely that private individuals acting alone would be sufficient to meet the need. This means that, yes, the political system must grope for a level of government involvement that seems, vaguely, to address the public’s concern. Perfection is not the goal, merely adequacy.

In other words, just because I am unlikely, given my lack of practice in recent years, to hit the bullseye in a game of darts with you is not to suggest that I don’t have a good chance of beating you in the game by getting closer to the bullseye. In fact, I don’t even have to have to see a precise, perfect image of the bullseye — I just have to know its general direction in relationship to your dart.

As to George’s point, let’s be historical about this. One reason for many Founders’ reluctance to give the franchise to all adult males in their respective states was their fear that uneducated, perversely incentivized mobs would wreak havoc. Jefferson’s answer was to say that, if so, the proper solution was not to withhold the franchise but to ensure a minimum standard of public education. I agree with Jefferson, but the more important point is that these individuals simply did not agree with the now-popular notion in the separationist movement that early America was composed largely of scholar-farmers and scholar-blacksmiths. To say that they were indeed skilled farmers and blacksmiths is irresponsive to the point.