*Originally written 09/08/2016*
In discussions of the educational system, libertarians fervently and consistently call for privatization. By this we do not mean marginal steps toward privatization, such as the commissioning of more charter schools or the institution of a voucher system, but rather the complete eradication of government influence from the education process. Indeed, this is the libertarian position on most, if not all, government functions. Now, upon hearing us repeat our standard line, “Let the free market handle it,” our opponents often accuse us of having no real plan or of being naive to believe that the free-market-way is always the best way. Of course, privatization is a plan, unless by “plan” they actually mean “policy-proposal,” in which case they would be absolutely correct. However, the charge of naivete, at least, is radically misplaced. The free market will always provide a better solution to any social issue than the government ever would.
I will freely admit that I do not know, with absolute certainty, what the best way of organizing our education system would be. I can, with some confidence, however, predict a few changes from our current system that would characterize a free market in education. For example, the government’s emphasis on treating all children alike and, more significantly, attempting to make all children alike would be completely abandoned. It is obvious that all children are different, with different abilities, interests, aptitudes, and rates of comprehension. However, the government operates under the assumption that, if all children are taught in the same way, they will all learn at the same pace and end up at the same place. The government also assumes that its standardized curriculum is equally relevant and useful to all students. In contrast, in a free market the focus would be on the individual child. With no higher motive but to serve the consumer, I foresee education firms specializing to an incredible degree. I believe that different schools would be available to children depending on their academic abilities, interests, learning styles, and life goals. More importantly, enrollment at any particular school would be completely voluntary, incentivizing schools to constantly improve themselves in an effort to attract students away from their competition.
In truth, however, I don’t know exactly what a free market in education would look like, nor do I have any comprehensive vision of what it should look like. This does not, however, make my support of privatization an act of naivete or blind faith. On the contrary, it makes my support of privatization an act of wisdom and humility. You see, to support the free market is not to support a specific plan; it is to support the freedom of every individual to try his own plan.
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the market cannot magically solve all of our problems. Only people can. The market is simply a process through which millions of people with different knowledge and abilities can contribute their ideas and efforts toward solving any social problem. To support the market is to support a system that allows for many competing experiments and then, through profit and loss, naturally discovers the solutions appropriate to every set of circumstances. To support the market is actually an acknowledgement of one’s inability to solve society’s problems by oneself. It is a call for all members of society to try every possible solution and discover the best solution together. As my friend Louis Rouanet puts it, “Markets are the solution to the problem of finding solutions.”
In light of this exposition, it should be evident that the government, which can only attempt one possible solution at a time and, without economic calculation, cannot even rationally evaluate the results of its attempt, can not hope to compete with the free market in finding ways to improve our school system. This also applies to all other areas of our life that are subject to government intervention. When libertarians advocate for privatization, we are not claiming to know a better method of educating children than the government or other reformers. Rather, we are simply asserting that there is a better method, and that it can only be found if we have the freedom to search for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment