I’m delighted to finally begin reading the acclaimed libertarian, F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Though I have only finished the introduction, I have come to greater understanding of socialism and see that it’s not only pursued by those on the left. Hayek’s work was written in the 1930s as Adolf Hitler rose to power, World War II was taking place, and at a time when he saw the rise of socialism which translated and still does to a group of elites who believe they can approach society from a top-down approach always coming at the expense of individual liberty. In observation at the time, he saw an abandonment of basic and sound economic principles serving as the basis for public policy but instead saw that agendas were being forced onto economic policy. Furthermore, he saw that despite the United States being founded on the principles of limited government and personal liberty, the elitist top-down approach to society’s problems was already having its impact on our way of life.
From the introduction, I have seen how agendas are forced on to economic policy. For one, under corporate fascism, business interests determine economic policy. For decades in the United States, this has manifested into eminent domain abuse, corporate preferential treatment in our tax code, corporate welfare initiatives that favor big businesses in downtown areas of major cities while other parts of the cities remain poverty stricken, and the imposition of protective tariffs to cite a few examples. The progressives on the other hand have imposed their social justice agenda onto economic policy. Tragically, this has meant welfare initiatives which sought to win the ‘war on poverty’ but instead have exacerbated poverty, lead to family breakdown, high crime levels, and lost economic opportunities. Specific examples include public housing, the expansion of social security, and government attempts to control healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare implemented in the 1960s and most recently Obama Care. The common drawback to all these policies is that they necessitate bureaucratic systems that don’t have an internal mechanism to control costs, so consequently we have seen significant levels of deficit spending and growing burdens imposed on taxpayers.
Those who embrace free enterprise have often said and I’m sure Hayek would agree that people’s economic resources should follow the economic choices they make. Regarding education, it can be stated that parents should be free to direct their resources to best determine how their children should be educated.
While this is a sound principle for education, Hayek’s concern for imposed agendas onto economic policies come to mind when I think of school choice initiatives. With the intent of getting disadvantaged children out of failing schools and relieving the burden for parents who send their children to private schools and home school them, I can see the merit behind the idea. Some advocates for school choice see that these parents are ‘double paying’ for education in that their tax dollars go to the public education system which they aren’t using for their children’s education while at the same time, through their disposable income they pay for private school tuition.
Though the principle for education freedom as mentioned above is sound, after much consideration, I see shortcomings in applying it to education policy and using it to advance school choice. In fact, I see that sound commitments to limited government and free enterprise are abandoned with school choice. I say that because school choice policies involve vouchers which are essentially subsidies that always involve people using other people’s money for their own ends. We’ve seen the problems that have arisen in higher education when the government has subsidized education through student loans and various grant programs. The loans and grants have translated into increased demand for higher education institutions and with the additional funds flowing into the colleges and universities, new priorities and initiatives have been implemented that have translated into higher costs which students have absorbed through increased tuition over the past fifty years. With this taken into consideration, vouchers intended for use in secondary education, in the long run may result in higher tuition for private schools which would defeat the intended purpose for school choice leaving parents with a greater predicament than they were in initially.
School choice also comes by tax credits and tax deductions. This too, is problematic because tax policies designed to advance free enterprise always involve tax relief across the board for all taxpayers rather than aiming relief for certain individuals or groups of individuals based on decisions, they make in the marketplace. By directing tax relief, government policy makers are determining priorities for the economy rather than allowing individuals to affect the marketplace overall by determining priorities for their own resources. This approach is far more effective because individuals have much greater knowledge of their own needs than central planners do.
Regarding any school choice initiative, it is important to recognize that for it to be implemented, levels of overhead are needed and like with any other government program, the cost for overhead only increases overtime. This necessitates a government workforce (which most likely will be unionized) needed to assist parents in the application process that will involve record keeping, registration, and most likely interacting with a website of some sort translating into an additional burden for taxpayers. While the idea of choice and freedom has been used to promote school choice initiatives, this is very much a misnomer. After all, it is the policy makers and those overseeing the program who will devise the way the initiatives are implemented. So, in any instance when school choice is implemented, parents aren’t choosing if they will receive a direct voucher for their child, a tax credit/deduction, or any other means of assistance to accomplish this purpose of advancing ‘education freedom.’ Once again, this is determined by policy makers. Like any other occasion when the government offers ‘help’ there are always stipulations which should make us consider if school choice initiatives are truly about advancing freedom.
Though school choice initiatives are well meaning, we must remember Hayek’s concern then that should still resonate now which is central planning paves the way to ‘Serfdom’ as we’ve seen overtime and that we shouldn’t allow to get worse.
In His Image 