Milton Friedman warned us about this kind of thinking: “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither.” Absurd as it sounds, we are approaching that level of thinking.

Take for instance the rise of “pandemic pods” that parents are creating in an effort to educate their children amid COVID-19 school closures. Pandemic pods are taking all kinds of shapes, but generally consist of a small band of parents organizing themselves (and sometimes even hiring private teachers) to oversee the education of their children. These enterprising parents are doing exactly what we would want any rational, thoughtful person to do. Indeed, they are doing the very thing that Alexis de Tocqueville lauded Americans for in “Democracy in America.” After traveling to the United States in the 1830s, de Tocqueville noted, “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition, are forever forming associations.” They were taking initiative to solve the problems around them.

From that day to today, we have seen this desire to join together for common cause and address societal ills as a good thing. For some, it seems, that view has now changed. Rather than celebrate parents who are finding innovative ways to make the most of the current situation, some are disparaging them and warning that their actions may cause irreparable harm.

In a Barron’s commentary, for instance, R. L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy suggests “Pandemic pods are a classic example of opportunity hoarding.” He goes on to argue: “like other forms of opportunity hoarding,” pandemic pods “tend to look as if individuals are simply making the best choices for their family, when in fact their actions will quickly concretize and widen inequalities.”

Similarly, in a Washington Post piece J.P.B. Gerald and Mira Debs equate pandemic pods to white flight. They warn, “These personal decisions, however, have a collective consequence.”

It seems Lewis-McCoy, Gerald, Debs, and others are viewing this issue through an equity lens only. On one hand, their analysis is right. When some individuals take an action that is in their own interest, it may very well create inequity. Indeed, that is the very nature of action! Any time one individual or group of individuals undertakes an activity that is designed to improve their life, they are by definition going to create some form of disparity between their station and other people’s station. Greater inequity will arise here if only affluent parents are able to organize better learning opportunities for their children.

It is in the solution, however, that these folks fall short. Lewis-McCoy has suggested we should “dissuade” parents from forming these pods. Gerald and Debs argued that instead of trying to address the problem themselves, parents should “stay and fight” for a better educational system.

Like the government handicappers of Harrison Bergeron, their solution is to stifle the creativity and opportunity of some individuals. This is what happens when you look at things ONLY through an equity lens.

Societal change and improvement are made by encouraging innovation and free association, not by stifling them. Our goal should not be to stop affluent parents from attempting to help their children, but to empower less-affluent families to do the same. We do this by increasing educational options, not by decreasing them.

Don’t get me wrong. Equity is important and we should all care about the health and welfare of the least advantaged in our society. To finish the Friedman quote: “A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

The post The Danger of an Equity Only Lens in Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Surely, it would be a giant shock to discover your memory was gone.

To be cut adrift from your own past is, literally, to lose your own life in the midst of living it. Suddenly, you have no friends, no background, no identity. You have lost any sense of meaning and purpose of the life you once led. And how can you even begin to think about the future if you don’t know your own past?

But what if we as nation were to wake up one day in the same condition—destitute of any knowledge or understanding who we are as a people and what was going on at different stages in the long and eventful history of our country?

If not yet there, we may be fast approaching that state.

“We’ve been raising several generations of young Americans who are, by and large, historically illiterate,” says David McCullough, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for history. As someone who has lectured at scores of colleges and universities across the country, he adds, “I know how much these young people – even at the most esteemed institutions of higher learning—don’t know. It’s shocking.”

By way of example, he tells the story of being approached by a college sophomore at a top Midwestern University who told him, “Until I heard your talk this morning, I never realized the original colonies are all on the East Coast.” “McCullough thought, “What have we been doing so wrong that this obviously bright young woman would get this far and not know that?”

In The Nation’s Report Card: U.S. History 2010, the U.S. Department of Education found that only 12 percent of high school seniors performed well enough to be rated “proficient” in their knowledge of the rudiments of U.S. history. To put that another way, 88 percent of high school seniors flunked the minimum proficiency rating, and only two percent correctly answered a question about the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

When speaking in different forums about the dangers of historical illiteracy, McCullough puts “gratitude” high on his list of the many “benefits to history.” “Every day, we’re all enjoying freedoms and aspects of life that we would never have had if it weren’t for those who figure importantly in history.” And again he says: “I think that America has come further in giving opportunity to the best that’s in human nature than any other country ever in history.”

Yes, we ought to be grateful. At the same time, we ought to be keenly aware of the great danger to the good life that we are living posed by collectivist thinking – the kind of thinking that is the deadly enemy of individual liberty and the idea that people should be free to lead their own lives as they choose as long as they don’t impose upon the same freedoms of other people.

Metaphorically speaking, no country—not even the United States—is an island, entire in itself. In order to understand our own history, we also have to understand world history and how other people have coped in dealing with some of the same problems that we have faced in our own country.

Today, most Americans under the age of 40 are unaware of the millions upon millions of people murdered or starved to death by communist regimes around the world over the past century. They just have no idea.

Why? At both the high school and university levels, the true history of Marxist-inspired socialism isn’t being taught—or, if it is, it is being taught in a sanitized fashion to glosses over the enormous crimes against humanity committed by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and other communist leaders.

In the hands of gifted historians like David McCullough—the author of best-selling books on Harry Truman, John Adams, and the Wright Brothers—stories of historical figures and important events tell us more about ourselves than we guessed possible.

In both our schools and our homes, we need to upgrade the teaching (and learning) of history. It really should be an eye-opening experience—something that makes us more aware of who we are and what we are capable of doing as a people and a nation.

The post The End of History as We (No Longer) Know It : A New Year’s Day Reflection appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With your help, we will continue to fight for limited government, individual liberty, reduced regulations, and entrepreneurial freedom.

If you enjoy reading this blog and agree with the ideas it presents for free-market based policies in Missouri, I hope that you will renew your support of our mission by making your tax-deductible contribution today!

The post Support This Blog and the Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Peter Greene is at it again. Previously, he argued conservatives should not support school choice. Now, he is arguing that school choice is un-American. I explained why he was wrong before and I did so again last Friday on the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice’s blog.

One of his main arguments is that private schools may teach objectionable content. I respond with this:

For as long as anyone can remember, there have been disagreements about what is being taught in public schools. That is because parents are compelled to send their children to public schools—if they can’t afford something different—and taxpayers are compelled to support public education through their tax dollars.

However, individuals have different values and beliefs. Of course, when parents disagree with their child’s public school they can pay for private school tuition, accept the school’s actions, or seize control and make the school change its position. Still, in all three of those scenarios, some people are being compelled to fund a school that teaches material with which they disagree.

There is simply no getting around the fact that someone’s beliefs or conscience will be compromised in the levying of taxes to support education…

Therefore, do those who oppose private school choice for this reason believe their rights are more important than others who object to content in public schools—but are compelled to support them anyway?

When the district where I taught banned Slaughterhouse-Five and Twenty Boy Summer, few progressive thinkers applauded the district for acquiescing to a parent’s wishes. They deemed the district backwards and lampooned the individual who led the effort to ban the books.

Peter Greene and other opponents of school choice programs might not mind Philadelphia’s decision to include A People’s History of the United States—a highly controversial book written by socialist Howard Zinn—in the public school curriculum, but many people do mind.

Greene does not seem interested in protecting all citizens from being compelled to fund schools that violate their beliefs, only the ones that think like he does.

Rather than compel students to attend schools that violate their convictions, school choice allows individuals to choose the school that aligns with their ideals. That is why I say, “School choice is about promoting individual liberty, and it doesn’t get more American than that.”

The post School Choice – As American As Individual Liberty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last night was obviously Snowmaggedon, and I hope everyone is staying safe out there as some of the roads are still nasty. The previous night, Wednesday, we hosted the second Show-Me Institute Saint Louis Book Club meeting of the year. We discussed the classic The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek. The central theme of the book is that fascism is a natural outgrowth of socialist central planning. Hayek’s desperate wish was to warn the western nations, especially England and the U.S., not to pursue the path of central planning. Hayek believed that a descent into fascism was more likely than it seemed to his audience: the citizens of non-fascist western nations in 1944.

But all that just makes the book sound like a dated warning against something no one really advocates anymore, right? Well, the book has staying power because of two timeless features which are perhaps separate sides of the same coin: Hayek explains why the price system not only works, but is the best system possible for maximizing individual welfare while also making a strong case for individual liberty and limited government, which Hayek calls (using the connotation of his time), liberalism.

It was a wonderful meeting and a rousing discussion. Book club meetings start at 7 p.m. and usually wrap up about 8:30 or 9 p.m. But Wednesday’s meeting did not end until shortly after 9:30 p.m. — we all had so much to discuss. Here are some of the topics and ideas we discussed:

• Whether a person’s concept of what is possible constrains their action.
• The important distinction between freedom and power: what it is and why it is important that they not be confused.
• This wonderful quote from Adam Smith (introduced roughly by Hayek): “[the regimentation of economic life puts governments in a position where] to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
• Where Hayek drew the line on the proper role of government and how that might undermine his overall message of liberty.
• Whether market competition is inherently violent (hint: it is not).
• Whether a legal system is necessary for competition, and David Friedman’s “the discipline of constant dealings.”
• The contradiction and ugliness of “competitive socialism.”
• An extended interlude about “Little House on the Prairie.”

The reading for next month is The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, another classic. Friedman is an economics and law professor with a Ph.D. in physics, and the son of free-market titan Milton Friedman. From the Amazon description: “This book argues the case for a society organized by private property, individual rights, and voluntary co-operation, with little or no government.” I am looking forward to some excellent discussion on this one at our March meeting, so please join us if you can (date of meeting to be announced, check here).

The post February Book Club Recap – The Road to Serfdom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Transit-Oriented Development: The Economic Development Myth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this video, Show-Me Institute Education Policy Analyst James Shuls discusses some of the problems with public schools as they are now, and how school choice can help improve student education and parental satisfaction.

The post School Choice and Individual Freedom: Advancing the Ideas of Milton Friedman appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 1955, Friedman introduced the concept that school choice via the use of vouchers could improve the quality of education. Yet, a quality education system was not his ultimate goal. Rather, he believed individual freedom was, or should be, the ultimate goal of a society. And by giving families the freedom to choose for themselves the best educational options for their children, Friedman theorized the market would respond with an improvement in the quality of education delivered.

The current body of research supports this theory. Random assignment experiments, which are the most rigorous type of research study, tend to find positive effects for students using vouchers, and none have found negative effects for voucher students. There is even some evidence that local public schools improve, and no evidence they are worse off, when they face voucher competition. The most promising evidence of voucher success, however, may be in terms of graduation rates. Students attending voucher schools tend to graduate at much higher rates than comparable students in nearby public schools. For example, students participating in the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program were 20 percent more likely to graduate from high school if they attended a voucher school. To rephrase a line Friedman often used, “the society that puts freedom before [educational] equality will end up with a great measure of both.”

Friedman believed the idea of a public education for all children did not necessitate that government be the sole provider of that education. He believed families should be free to choose from a variety of schools operated “by private enterprises operated for profit, nonprofit institutions established by private endowment, religious bodies, and some even by governmental units.” It has taken some time, but Friedman’s ideas of individual freedom through school choice are taking root in the American psyche. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal dubbed 2011 “The Year of School Choice.”

Though we have made progress in increasing school choice, Missouri has a long road to haul before families are able to enjoy the level of freedom that Friedman envisioned. We must continue to work until all families are free to choose the best educational options for their children. As Friedman said, “Freedom is not a natural state of mankind. It is a rare and wonderful achievement.”

James V. Shuls is an education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The Institute is participating in Friedman Legacy for Freedom Day on July 31, an international event celebrating the late Milton Friedman.

The post School Choice And Individual Liberty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The article features a photograph of Rachel Kelly, a server who is happy to work in one of Kirkwood’s restaurants where smoking is banned. She also avoids patronizing restaurants that allow smoking, and says that she will leave a restaurant if patrons are smoking cigarettes.

This is a common story in arguments favoring smoking bans, but some parts of the story are being left out. Kelly is protected from secondhand smoke in her work environment, but how can restaurant owners who do allow smoking protect their nonsmoking customers from secondhand smoke? One answer is that the customers can protect themselves by not eating there, which is exactly the strategy employed by Kelly. We’ve discussed many times the fact that no one is forcing customers to eat surrounded by smoke, but should smokers be forced to eat in clean, smoke-free air?

As the article points out, Missouri has a smoking rate of 23.1 percent, which is above the national average of 20 percent. What this tells us is that more than one Missourian out of every five likes to smoke, despite the well-publicized risks of smoking, and despite the rising cost of cigarettes due to increased taxation of tobacco products. If these people continue smoking even in the face of such obstacles, presumably they must derive great enjoyment or utility from it. These citizens are willing to pay large amounts of money for the opportunity to smoke, and presumably, many of them would also pay to engage in various leisure activities while smoking. In his testimony before the City Council of Clayton, David Stokes pointed out that different businesses cater to the unique preferences of their customers, creating a varied marketplace that can satisfy the needs of many. Smokers (and the entrepreneurs who cater to them) may be in the minority, but they have the same rights as other citizens.

The post Love That Smoky Flavor! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you are in Sedalia, stop by the exhibition hall between corn dogs to talk to us about free markets. For those of you who haven’t had a chance to stop by, here is a picture of our booth!

* Title quote: Lenny at the State Fair, from That Thing You Do.

The post “Oh, I’m Not Here With These Fellas; I’ve Got a Pig in Competition Over at the Livestock Pavilion, and I Am Going to Win That Blue Ribbon!”* appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Efforts to increase Missouri’s cigarette tax have been around for a while, and are often couched as an incentive to get smokers to quit and improve public health. The issue is now back on the radar in states like Missouri that are struggling to balance their budgets.

Using the Show-Me IDEAS tool, I was able to compare cigarette taxes across states. This chart shows the nation’s average tax at around $1.30 per pack, far higher than Missouri’s 17 cents per pack:

Click image to enlarge

Illinois legislators recently put a $1 per pack hike proposal on hold until later this summer. If this goes through in Illinois, smokers along the border and in the Metro East can look to Missouri for the cheapest cigarettes in the nation — but only if Missouri can hold on to its new title.

Although the majority of Americans don’t smoke, a new poll suggests that most voters would favor increases in tobacco taxes as an alternative to state budget cuts. This kind of discrepancy demonstrates one of the main problems with cigarette taxes — those least directly affected by the tax feel justified in imposing a tax on those most affected.

John Stuart Mill had it exactly right. Only six years before the appearance of cigarette taxes in America, he wrote in On Liberty:

The majority have not yet learnt to feel the power of the government their power, or its opinions their opinions. When they do so, individual liberty will probably be as much exposed to invasion from the government, as it already is from public opinion. But, as yet, there is a considerable amount of feeling ready to be called forth against any attempt of the law to control individuals in things in which they have not hitherto been accustomed to be controlled by it; and this with very little discrimination as to whether the matter is, or is not, within the legitimate sphere of legal control; insomuch that the feeling, highly salutary on the whole, is perhaps quite as often misplaced as well grounded in the particular instances of its application.

The post Cheapest Smokes in the Nation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s true that a strict libertarian or free-market perspective might prevent the government from interfering when individuals choose to act in a discriminatory fashion. This may make people uncomfortable. But, as Mr. Paul pointed out, the very idea of freedom requires us to tolerate certain decisions that we might find distasteful, in order to ensure that we have the liberty to make decisions that others might find distasteful. For example: Our nation prizes freedom of expression so much that our constitutions deny governments the authority to restrict or punish speech, even if the ideas expressed are almost universally regarded as offensive. Respect for this form of freedom is so ingrained in our culture that its wisdom is only rarely challenged. Mr. Paul was trying to help Ms. Maddow understand that, similarly, if one believes in individual liberty then one must necessarily be prepared to tolerate the fact that some individuals will use that liberty in ways that others might find offensive.

The proper question, I believe, is how best to deal with those situations when they present themselves. Where speech is concerned, if someone says something offensive, the ideal solution for those offended would be either not to listen to that speaker or to respond with their own speech. Likewise, the best response to discriminatory business establishments would have been for others to boycott the offending establishments and/or to open non-discriminatory establishments of their own. The same principle can be applied to businesses that refuse to hire or promote qualified minority or female applicants. These discriminatory decisions create an opportunity for competing businesses to hire those same applicants — which, presumably, will allow them to offer higher-quality services than the discriminatory employer. The effect might not be immediate, but eventually it will become plain that discrimination is both foolish and costly.

It is also vitally important to remember that governmental power is a double-edged sword. A power that can be used in ways of which you approve can also be used in ways that you find repugnant. The problem of segregation/desegregation is a useful example, because the governmental action at issue represented flip sides of the same freedom-denying coin. In much of the Jim Crow South, segregation was not optional. Those allowed to vote — almost exclusively white people, many of whom had an interest in maintaining a privileged status in society — elected representatives who decided that individual business owners were not permitted to offer a desegregated environment. Thus, all people were forced to live with governmentally enforced segregation. After the Civil Rights reforms were enacted, individual business owners were not permitted to offer a segregated environment — all people were forced to live with governmentally enforced desegregation. At all times, individual citizens had only a limited ability to make these choices for themselves.

In a libertarian or free-market paradigm, the government would not have the authority to dictate these matters to individual in either direction. The government’s sole responsibility would be to ensure that those who sought actively to harm others would be brought to justice and, if necessary, their victims compensated for any demonstrable, quantifiable injuries suffered. Those who believed strongly in the importance of segregation would be permitted to live out their choice — but would also be forced to suffer the disadvantages that would flow from their choice. Those who favored integration would realize a unique competitive advantage that, eventually, would reveal the wisdom of that approach.

To sum up, governmental control over the decisions that individuals may make for themselves presents a seductive shortcut for those who believe that the world ought to be ordered in some particular way. But not only does it represent a denial of individual liberty, a government vested with the power to dictate decisions made by its citizens can very easily turn against those who had hoped to use it to pursue their vision of a “good” society. As George Washington once warned: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

The post On Private Discrimination appeared first on Show-Me Institute.