Government

Public Health

2021-06-28 Leave a Comment

We say the word “public health” but what we really mean is more government control over our bodies. This is a dangerous concentration of power, one that has repeatedly shown itself susceptible to abuse in the past. What starts with quarantines and vaccinations then progresses to treating every politically unpopular issue (guns, cyber-bullying, skinny fashion models, large sugary beverages) as a “public health concern.” This has led to some of the saddest chapters in our history.

This concern is not merely hypothetical. We’ve seen it happen. Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1927 Buck v. Bell, argued that forced sterilization of the “unfit” was merely an extension of the public health power of compulsory vaccination:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

To a libertarian, the term “public health,” like “national security,” is one to treat with great skepticism. It should not be taken as a justification beyond criticism or debate. There might be public health goals that are compatible with libertarian means. But there are certainly other public heath goals that are not. A blanket authority that can be wielded for any goal a politician or technocrat happens to label “public health” is, historically, unwise.

The Government, Not COVID-19, Broke Schools

2020-10-15 Leave a Comment

In recent months, policymakers have had to make a nearly impossible decision: Should they open public schools or continue with remote education? If they open the schools then some children will possibly catch COVID-19 and infect an older relative. But if a parent must stay home to monitor their child’s remote learning, how can the parent return to work? And what about families without highspeed broadband? And what about older teachers who will be at risk of catching COVID-19 if they return to the classroom?

We see here a conflicting set of priorities, a real thorny problem. So, how should policymakers pick the best solution? Or is this even the right question to be asking?

Let’s look at a parallel problem, conflicting priorities about automobiles, and remind ourselves about what we already know about how the world works. One person wants a car that runs on renewable energy. Another wants an SUV that comfortably fits eight passengers. Another needs a small truck for his business, one with towing power. Another seeks a car that looks sporty. Another really wants good off-road handling.

What would it look like if the government made all the cars and they were all the same model? How would policymakers reconcile all the different priorities? Would they do a good job? Or would it end up like the Trebant? I think we know the answer here.

This real problem here is not COVID-19. The real problem has been with us for much longer. The real problem is a government monopoly in K-12 education that forces us into monolithic solutions, without considering the individual preferences of parents, students, and teachers. It is this one-size-fits-all approach of public schools that makes it impossible to make everyone happy. What the pandemic has done is stress the system and shown more clearly how unresponsive the state-run education system is and always has been.

As an alternative, imagine a world where the current cost per student of public schools was turned into a portable “Education Voucher” that parents could spend on their child’s behalf. If continuing to send their child to the local public school is the best fit for the family, then they could use the voucher for that. Nothing for them would change. But if a public school nearer to the parent’s workplace makes more sense, so they can avoid taking a bus, then the voucher could be used for that. If a charter school or a private school was preferred, then the parent could use the voucher towards that tuition. If a parent would rather take a cut to their own work hours, so they could stay home and monitor their child’s remote education, or even home school them, then the voucher could be applied to those lost wages. The voucher could be used to purchase homeschooling books and supplies, or to pay for broadband or a computer.

There is a lot that a parent could do today if given the opportunity of an Education Voucher. But that is just considering half of the picture. What incentives would nation-wide access to Education Vouchers create among producers of educational goods and services, if they knew that tens of millions of families were free to consider alternative educational experiences for their children? What innovations might come?

A hypothetical scenario: a business might hire some of the most experienced and talented teachers, including older ones who might not have felt safe being in a classroom full of young “asymptomatic carriers.” The teachers could work on developing a curriculum and delivering instruction, all grades, all subjects. The instruction could be recorded and streamed online or fed into a cable or satellite network. Everyone household could be reached, even if they did not have broadband. The cable or satellite company might handle the billing, and even bundle a computer with the subscription. (They already know how to handle renting cable boxes and such.)

The above approach might be a great solution for some but might not be an adequate solution for others. That’s fine. We’re not looking for one-size-fits-all compromises. We’re not looking to design a “sporty and roomy electric off-road SUV with a hitch” for everyone to buy. The point is to encourage free market solutions in an area where consumers naturally have diverse preferences, an area which is particularly poorly served today by a government-run monopoly.

Free markets are not about translating, one-for-one, government solutions into private sector alternatives. Free markets not about just offering a choice among several well-known alternatives. Free markets are about alert entrepreneurs, attentive to changing consumer needs and the incentives these needs create. Free markets are about innovation.

In a sense this related to Frederic Bastiat’s famous essay, “That Which is Seen and that Which is Unseen.” We all see the public school, the teachers, and the classrooms. We can imagine that, if Education Vouchers were made available, that this would translate into some teachers and some students being in different classrooms, perhaps down the street, in schools that would be privately run, but would otherwise be quite similar to the public schools. That much is familiar to us. We can see that in our mind’s eye. But what is unseen and hard to even imagine are the innovative educational approaches that would be created, here in the 21^st century, if not for the government monopoly in K-12 education. These solutions, unseen today for lack of incentives to create them, might be so different from what we know that we might not even call them “schools.” We would need to seek a new word for them, like we had to invent the word “automobile” to replace “horse-drawn carriage” and “lightbulb” to replace “candle.”

The Police

2020-04-21 Leave a Comment

I am ambivalent about the police. At the core, police enforce the government’s laws. For example, they enforce laws against assault and murder. This is a good thing. But they also enforce laws against selling “loose” cigarettes and unlicensed burritos.

Police catch rapists and burglars. But they also shut down lemonade stands and seize the cash deposits of immigrant business owners.

Police run toward crazed gunmen when others are running away. Police have also used their batons against labor organizers, suffragettes and civil rights protesters.

Police, as instruments of state power, have all the contradictions of state power. At their best they are heroes. At their worst they are jackbooted thugs. In between they daily enforce the dull yet pervasive oppression of the bureaucratic state.

The libertarian view is not so much opposed to police per se, as it is opposed to the paternalistic Big Brother state that has lost track of the core mission of government — protecting natural rights — and insinuated itself into all parts of our lives. Restore the state to its proper role and police would at the same time be restored to their proper role.

Democratic Anarcho-Capitalism: A Thought Experiment

2020-02-18 Leave a Comment

A challenge of achieving anarcho-capitalism is that we live in a society with so many people reliant on public infrastructure and institutions, from roads and utilities to schools and courts. There is also the crowding-out effect, how state provision of a service discourages competition from the private sector. Although we can easily argue and describe the superiority of private alternatives, in moral terms as well as in predicted results, getting from here to there, within a framework of a democracy, is a particularly hard nut to crack.

I’d like to suggest a thought experiment that illustrates one way in which a majoritarian democratic state could transition to a stateless anarcho-capitalist society, without major disruption.

The goal is to recognize reliance interests and give time for transitions, but also provide the certainty of a change, so entrepreneurs can make plans.

Let’s start with reformulating majoritarian democracy with three meta-rules (a.k.a. a constitution):

A sufficient majority of eligible voters may make such laws as it sees fit.
All laws will require reaffirmation, by a sufficient majority, every 10 years, or will be automatically voided.
A sufficient majority is defined as at least 50% in year 1, but will increase by 1% every year until it reaches 100%.

So, under this system, in year 1, it will be pretty much as we have it today. If the majority wants a new law, it will be created. If the majority wants to repeat a law, it will be repealed.

In following years, it will be become increasingly difficult to pass new laws, or maintain old laws, if they have but narrow support. Only laws that have broader support will still exist.

The would-be laws that are not approved will force those minority interests to seek alternatives in the private sector. Say, for example, that a law is proposed to require licencing of hair braiders, but in year ten the needed 60% approval is not achieved. The 40% who supported this law would be encouraged, as an alternative, to set up a private certifying agency, to develop standards, test applicants, and licence use of its certification mark. It would follow the long-established model of other private-sector certification programs, like those used to certify Kosher food or Microsoft-Certified Developers.

Of course, those programs that only made sense based on rent-seeking behaviors, those that don’t serve any other purpose but to reduce competition, would likely fail in the private sector as well. This is a good thing. The first laws to die would naturally be those that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

At some point even more cherished programs will be be challenged. But this need not lead to an abrupt change. Let’s imagine that, absent any other proposal, in year 30, when 80% approval is required, funding of public schools fails its reaffirmation vote. Although hitting that “tipping point” has an abrupt effect, many would have anticipated its eventual arrival and would have had ample opportunity to plan for a transition. For example, in year 20, with the writing on the wall, a sufficient majority of 70% might support a 10-year transition from public schools to vouchers , starting by instituting school choice, auctioning off public school buildings, etc.

The inexorable gradual pressure of increasing levels of consent would focus government on its fundamental tasks, while relieving the private sector of crowding-out effects and allowing greater ability to plan and invest in private sector alternatives.

In year forty, with a 90% majority required to maintain laws, I suspect we have only a minimal, nightwatchman state, consisting of a defensive military, courts of justice and a few other things. It would be smaller government, but government would necessarily have very high approval ratings, around 90%, due to the high degree of consensus required to sustain it.