Politics Destroys Education

POLITICS DESTROYS EDUCATION Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr President of the Department of Economics National Academy of Sciences Argentina

Mont Pelerin Society - General Meeting Guatemala City, November 2006

1 / Benegas Lynch

POLITICS DESTROYS EDUCATION

The modern and historical evidence points inexorably to the fact that government involvement in education tends to interfere with the very principle it is meant to advance.

Andrew J. Coulson, 1999

Schools for Attilas...

Paul Johnson, 1977 In India, the condition of our public administration proves that it is the state that is in need of knowledge; it cannot impart it.

Sauvik Chakraverti, 2001

In this presentation I will concentrate on seven topics which I consider are the most relevant related to education, in the context of our contemporary debate. This seven chapters will move step by step as an in crecendo towards a free society.

The premise from which this presentation starts its reasoning is that each human being is unique. We are all different from the anatomic, physiological, biochemical and psychological point of view. Our potentialities, talents, inclinations and vocations differ widely from one another. Each person should be free to try to reach its goals with no violent interference whatsoever by third parties, except if it were to infringe other peoples rights, in which case defensive force should be used to stop such aggressive attitudes. But voluntary and peaceful actions should not be stopped regardless the roads each person decides as convenient for himself.

2 / Benegas Lynch

1

Free, open and competitive education is the sine que non so as to approach life in ways that suite different persons. Competition in education is much more important than to have free and open competition in other services and goods at the market place. Since the competitive process serves as an auditing device for quality and price, education should not be left aside precisely because it constitutes the basic capital of each person. As it has been said “we are all ignorant, only on different matters”. We all have in common an enormous dosis of ignorance, our knowledge is infinitesimal.

We just are capable of seizing small fragments of information. Diversity of knowledge makes social cooperation possible. Among other reasons, central planning is not technically possible, not because there is not sufficient information available but because the information does not exist before the actions of millions of persons are undertaken in society.

The learning process is one of trial and error, there are no given paths. We should consider our knowledge as provisional corroborations that must be open to refutation, which, in its turn, allows for further knowledge. This is one reason why there should be quite different methods competing in the market. The other reason is of course due respect for others peaceful decisions.

Education is an everlasting process. We will never “complete” our education. On the other hand, it is mainly an inside operation. Education comes from within. Teaching can motivate and play an important role as an incentive, can help to explore potentialities and talents but will never be a substitute for learning.

3 / Benegas Lynch

2

As it has been repeatedly discussed, the so called “levels of IQ” are highly controversial,

because,

given

the

opportunity,

each

person

can

exterioriorize wide range of capacities and multiple expressions of intelligence that are not limited to certain and specific qualities and abilities that are sometimes included in IQ measurements. Persons are usually “smart” in very different fields and topics. This is the reason why the oneto-one tutorial methodology it is so productive. In this way, the teacher can concentrate on the unique person it has before him and, in that way, it is easier to reach into inclinations and potentialities that are exclusively present in that particular student.

As it is well known through the

experience of home schooling, social gatherings are obtained in sports, clubs etc.

At present moment the one-to-one relationships are generally very expensive, which induces the teaching in groups so as to take advantage from economics of scale. To a large extent, schools and universities are a consequence of this. May be cybernetics will produce dramatic changes in the near future. In any case, from the present need to teach to groups it does not follow that the monopoly of force known as “government” must be allowed to interfere with educational programs, book texts or whatever, resorting to violence - political power - so as to impose visions that are supported by the burocrats of the moment.

This not only violates individual rights but also is contrary to democratic principles which are not limited to majority rule (to state the contrary would allow to say that the nazi regime was democratic because Hitler came to power through elections), but relate to principles of mutual respect.

4 / Benegas Lynch

As we all know, the following are erroneous equations : 50% + 1% = 100% and 50% - 1% = 0%.

In most places, when we refer to private schools they are really de facto state owned, property is registered de jure to private owners but they can only (sometimes) decide about the construction of the building, the colour of the uniforms and so on and so forth. But central issues such as what is going to be taught in class is mainly decided by political authorities, ergo they are state own educational institutions. There is no such things as private education in countries where governments are involved in the content of the curricula or in some aspects of it. It is really a fascist system which is much more hypocrite than a communist regime that declares state education de jure and de facto. By the way, state education should not be labelled “public education” because private education is also for the public, it is a disguise to hide the real filiation that is so repulsive as “state literature”, “state newspapers” or “state religion”.

Open and competitive curriculae allows the evolutionary process of knowledge to take place at its full strenght and it invites to explore new avenues of thought, all of which stimulates continuous criticism so as to show the pros and cons of competitive theories and, at the same time, avoiding the treatment of students as if they were an assembly-line product.

3

Government should not impose either what is usually referred to as a “minimum education” since this requirement presents many difficulties. In the first place, if we conclude that education consists in a learning process formal and informal – an individual undergoes during his lifetime in order 5 / Benegas Lynch

to realize his potentialities and, at the same time, we are all different from each other, deciding on what this minimum becomes altogether arbitrary. It is much more important to stay alive than to be educated so in this line of thought, government should supply our daily diet regardless of our personal choices. If some people believe everybody should receive education in areas A, B, and C and everybody agrees to it, no force would be required to impose such a decision. However, if people prefer areas D, E and F there is no ground on which to prevent them from devoting themselves to those areas and compel them to invest in A, B and C instead.

4

It is frequently argued that state owned schools should be financed so as to assure “equality of opportunities�. The only equality compatible with an open society is equality before the law. Inequality among individuals produces unequal results. Moreover, inequality of opportunities is a consequence of human nature, of different disposition, capacity, talents, choices, tastes and mental and physical energy. The opportunity to play tennis is not the same for an able person as it is for the crippled one. The opportunity to understand geometry or medicine is not the same for the mentally disabled as it is for the person who is not. The opportunities are not equal for the more affluent and for the relatively poor ones. In an open society, productive energy provides greater but never equal opportunities because this necessarily implies nullifying equality before the law, since not everyone would be entitled to the same rights, something that, in the last resort, would result in lesser opportunities for everybody on account of the misallocation of resources that such a policy always produces.

6 / Benegas Lynch

5

In a truly free society there should not be such thing as state owned schools and universities. We should be aware of the fact that we all pay taxes, we are all de facto taxpayers; even those who have never seen a tax form have to afford fiscal charges through a reduction in wages due to lower capitalization generated by the de jure taxpayers. Therefore, it is an injustice that the very poor people - so poor that they cannot afford the opportunity cost of sending their children to school without starving to death - be compelled to finance the education of more affluent families.

Besides, those low income families who manage to send their children to school come to the conclusion that it is more advantageous to resort to a state-owned school so as to avoid a double expense, that is being taxed on the one side and having to pay for private education on the other.

In the same line of thought, government schools are established so as to grant the so-called “right to education”. But this is a pseudo-right. The counterpart of a right is an obligation. I have the right to my house which means that all other persons have the obligation to respect it, but if I say I have the “right” to another house that I cannot afford and this “right” is granted, other people will have the obligation to give me the necessary resources, which in its turn means that other people’s rights have been infringed.

6

In some cases a state voucher system has been proposed to show that if it is established that with taxpayers money the government should finance the schooling of some citizens, it does not follow that state owned schools and universities should exist. The voucher system shows that there is a non 7 / Benegas Lynch

sequitur, that means that from the premise that the voting process could be used for expropriation purposes so that taxpayers should finance other people’s education, it does not follow that there should be state schools and universities. Each candidate would choose between all available private institutions.

This is true, but the state voucher system will also create the previously mentioned coerced income transfers and consequent injustices. On the other hand, the state voucher system would create incentives for candidates to apply and for educational institutions to receive vouchers. This incentives will tend to create lobbies from candidates and educational institutions to be increasingly financed by state vouchers. If this is so, in the last analysis public expenditure would rise and, finally, the state would have control over education since the system would encourage the financing of private schools. Needless to say that we are not referring to privately financed vouchers such as it is successfully done today by some of the leading foundations. Problems arise when funds are provided through compulsion.

I understand that a state voucher system has been sometimes presented as a “second best� (which, as pointed before, will not even be necessary so), but if we stick to the first best there would be higher probabilities of moving the axis of the debate towards what at the moment the available knowledge shows to be the most attractive goal and leave the rest to politicians. We know that it would be better to suffer a 10% inflation than a 40% inflation rate, but from the intellectual side of the debate it would be better still if we concentrate in a monetary and banking reform that would not allow artificial distortions in relative prices due to monetary manipulations. I am suggesting we should not use taxpayers money for educational purposes, 8 / Benegas Lynch

since, among other things, it is very bad education to use force if it is not as a defense device to protect rights.

7

Leaving aside the debate about “public goods”, it has been explained that education does not meet the nonrivalry and nonexclusiveness conditions. It also should be taken into consideration that positive externalities produced by educated persons are the main reason why there are grants and other ways of private financing students and educational institutions in general.

There is a close connection between freedom and charity. Charity is by definition voluntary and realized with ones own resources. The so called “welfare state” reduces incomes via taxation, wastes in red tape and pretends that philanthropy is possible through force. In an open society each person will allocate resources according to his preferences. He will make his choices at the margin, he will estimate the additional benefits from spending additional resources. He will continue his activity when marginal benefits exceed marginal costs and up to the point both values equal. If marginal costs should exceed marginal benefits the individual will cut back until both values equal. Forced education against a person’s preferences will produce a loss and, as has been said, state subsidies will misallocate resources which, in its turn, leads to a net loss for the whole.

Finally, as a conclusion of what has been said, the most important measure that a civilized country should adopt is to abolish all attempts to politicize education, which means getting ride of Ministries, Secretaries or Departments of Education or, for the matter, any interference of power in peaceful and voluntary arrangements that are by nature private. If people judge that certain professions should operate on the basis of a special 9 / Benegas Lynch

quality recognition, that is precisely what they will have trough private associations such as academies, insurance companies, auditing groups or whatever. If something goes wrong the private associaltion that granted quality will take responsability and not be diffused and lost in the political arena. In other words, politics destroys education.

The following addendum is a bibliographical appendix from which I have learned about education and that eventually will support those who are working on the subject we have summarized in this brief presentation.

Addendum

Alchain, Armen A. “The Economic and Social Impact of Free Tuition”, [1986], Economic Forces at Work, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 1977.

Asimov, Isaac “Thinking about Thinking”, New York, Avon, 1977.

Barzun, Jacques The Home of Intellect, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1959. ___________ The Culture We Deserve, Middletown, Connecticut, Wesleyan University, 1989.

Benegas Lynch, Alberto Jr “Education in an Open Society”, An Austrian in France Festschrift in Honour of Jacques Garello, Torino, La Rosa Editrice, 1997, A.M. Petroni, K. Leube & J. Sadowsky eds. ____________ “Toward a Theory of Autogovernment”, Values and the Social Order, Vol. 3, Aldershot, England, 1997, Gerard Radnitzky ed.

Benegas Lynch, Bertie Sistema abierto de educación [ A System of Open Education ], Master´s Thesis, Buenos Aires, Eseade, Graduate School in Economics & Business Administration, 2005.

Bono, Edward de Teaching Thinking, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1976.

Bloom, Allan The Closing of the American Mind, New York, Simon & Schuster 1987.

Branden, Nathaniel Taking Responsability, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996.

Chakraverti, Sauvik “Preface”, Samuel Smiles, Self-Help, [1859], New Delhi, Liberty Institute, 2001.

Chodorov, Frank “Education and Freedom”, Part vi, [1954], Fugitive Essays Selected Writings of Frank Chodorov, Indianapolis, Liberty Press, 1980, Charles H. Hamilton, ed.

Coulson, Andrew J. Market Education, London, Transaction Pub., 1999.

10 / Benegas Lynch

Ellul, Jacques

“Politization and Political Solutions”, [1967], The Politization of Society, Indianapolis, Liberty Press, 1979, K. S. Tempelton,Jr ed.

Eyseneck, Hans J Know your IQ,, New York, Pinguin Books, 1990.

Flew, Antony Thinking about Thinking, London, Fontana Press, 1975.

Friedman, David The Machinery of Freedom, Lasalle, ILL, Open Court, [1970] 1989, Part ii, Seccs. 11, 12 and 13.

Fromm, Erich Man for Himself, New York, Henry Holt and Co., [1947], 1990.

Gardner, Howard Multiple Intelligences, New York, Basic Books, 1993. _____________ Changing Minds, Boston,MA, Harvard Business School, 2004.

Goleman, Daniel Emotional Intelligence, New York, Bantam Books, 1995.

Hague, David Beyond Universities, London, The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1991.

Herbert, Auberon “State Education : A Help or Hindrance?”, The Right and Wrong Of Compulsion by the State, Indianapolis, Liberty Classics [1873], 1978.

Hospers, John Libertarianism, Los Angeles, CA, Nash Pub. 1971, Ch.15, Secc.7 Humbolt, Wilhelm von The Limits of State Action, Cambridge, Cambridge .

University Press, [1791], 1969, Chap. vi Huxley, Aldous Brave New World Revisited, London, Triad Grafton Books, 1958 ____________ “Education”, Ends and Means, London, Chato & Windus, 1938.

Jasay, Anthony de Social Contract, Free Ride, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989.

Johnson, Paul “Schools for Attilas”, Enemies of Society, New York, Atheneum, 1977.

Jung, Carl G. The Development of Personality, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1917], 1981, Herebert Read, Michael Fordham and Gerghard Alder eds.

Kilcka, Christopher J. The Right Choice . Home Scooling, Greshan, OR, Noble Publishing Associates, 1995.

Kors, A.C. & Silverglate, H.A The Shadow University : The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses, New York, The Free Press, 1998.

Lucas, John R. The Freedom of the Will, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970.

Lyman, Isabel “Homeschooling, Back to the Future?”, Policy Analysis, Cato .

Institute, January 7, 1998.

Machan, Tibor Human Rights and Human Liberties, Chicago, Nelson Hall, 1975, p.188 ff.

Mane, Henry G. “The Political Economy of Modern Universities”, Education in a Free Society, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 1973.

Mises, Ludwig von The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth, Princeton, van Nostrand, [1927], 1962, p.114 ff.

Montessori, Maria Handbook, New York, Schocken Books, [1914], 1965.

Narvenson, Jan The Libertarian Idea, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, .

1988, Chap. 20.

11 / Benegas Lynch

Norris, Christopher Against Relativism, London, Blackwell Publishers, 1997.

Noüy, Lecomte de Human Destiny, London, Longmans & Green , 1947, Chap xv.

Nozick, Robert “Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? ”, Socratic Puzzles, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1997, Chap.15 Oakeshott, Michael The Voice of Liberal Education, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989, Timothy Fuller ed.

Paterson, Isabel God and the Machine, London, Transaction Pub.,[1943], 1993, p 258 ff.

Popper, Karl R. Knowledge and the Mind-Body Problem, London, Routledge,1994 Read, Leonard E. Anything That’s Peaceful, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York,The Foundation for Economic Education, 1964, Chaps.15,16 & 17.

Rescher, Nicholas Objectivity. The Obligations of Impersonal Reason, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. _______________ Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus, Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1993.

Rogers, Carl R. Freedom to Learn for the 80´s, New York, Bell & Howell Co.1983. ____________ On Becoming a Person, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981.

Rothbard, Murray N. Education, Free and Compulsory, New York, Center for Independent Education, 1974.

Schmidtz, David The Limits of Government : An Essay on the Public Goods Argument San Francisco, CA, Westview Press, 1991.

Sheaffer, Robert Resentment Against Achievement, New York, Prometheus, 1988.

Shenfield, Arthur From Campus to Capitol : The Cost of Intellectual Bankrupcy, Rockford, ILL, Rockford College Institution, 1972.

Sowell, Thomas Inside American Education, New York, The Free Press, 1993. _____________ In Quest for Cosmic Justice, New York, Free Press, 1999, p.74,ff.

Spencer, Herbert Social Statics, New York, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, [1850], 1952, p.161 ff.

Tarcov, Nathan Locke´s Education for Liberty, The University of Chicago, 1984.

Tooley, James Education without the State, London, The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1996.

Twight, Charlotte Dependent on DC. The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of Ordinary Americans, New York, Palgrave, 2002, Chap. 5 West, Edwin G. Education and the State, London, The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1970.

Whitehead, Alfred N. The Aims of Education and other Essays, New York, The New American Library, [1932], 1957.

Williams, Roger J. Free and Unequal : The Biological Basis of Individual Liberty Austin, The University of Texas Press, 1953.

12 / Benegas Lynch