State Department Confusion over Liberty

The Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | Jacob G. Hornberger

[sendtoscott]

The great German thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once observed, "No one
is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." Goethe's
words might sum up the plight of the American people, a plight that was
recently reflected in a secret report that emerged from the U.S. embassy in
Guatemala, which is headed by U.S. Ambassador Prudence Bushnell.

The report, which was exposed and criticized in a Wall Street Journal op-ed
entitled "A Guatemalan Free-Market Reformer Is under Fire" by Mary O'Grady
(Aug. 3 WSJ), harshly criticized one of the 's leading advocates of
free-market thinking, Manuel Ayau, and the prestigious university he founded
in Guatemala 30 years ago, Universidad Francisco Marroquin (www.ufm.edu.gt).

The embassy document took Ayau to task for his uncompromising devotion to
free-market principles and criticized the university for emphasizing the
economic philosophy of such ardent free-market economists as Friedrich A.
Hayek, a Nobel Prize winner, and Ludwig von Mises.

The report also suggested that Ayau and the university were anti-government,
anti-democratic, and anti-freedom because they questioned such things as
income taxation, welfare, and public schooling, all which of course are
well-established governmental institutions in the United States. The
implication is that since the United States is the model of a free and
democratic society, anyone who criticizes these core elements of the
American way of life must be an opponent of freedom and democracy.

The controversy raises important questions about the nature of freedom and
control and the differences between a free-market economic system and a
socialist one.

Consider public (state) schooling. I challenge anyone to show me a better
model of socialistic central planning than public schooling. A central board
of elected or appointed government commissars, whether at a national, state,
or local level, plans, in a top-down fashion, the educational decisions of
thousands or even millions of people. School attendance is mandatory by law,
and school funding is based on the Marxian principle "From each according to
his ability, to each according to his need." Students are taught by
government-approved schoolteachers using government-approved textbooks
following a government-approved curriculum. I repeat my challenge: Show me a
better model of socialistic central planning than public schooling.

Most everyone would agree that Cuba is a good model for a socialist society.
Guess what they have in Cuba. That's right -- public (state) schooling, all
the way through college! In fact, public schooling is one of Fidel Castro's
proudest accomplishments.

Now, is public schooling an island of freedom and free enterprise in Cuba or
is it a socialist institution within a socialist society? If we were to ask
Fidel Castro, he would unquestionably respond, "Every socialist knows that
state schooling is an essential element of a socialist, centrally planned
society."

How would U.S. governmental officials respond to that same question? They
would undoubtedly answer that public schooling is instead the backbone of a
free society.

But how can public schooling be both free-market and socialist? Or as the
famous advocate of unfettered capitalism Ayn Rand would have put it, how can
A be non-A? And if public schooling is free-enterprise, how would we label a
way of life in which school and state were separated, in which
compulsory-attendance laws and school taxes were repealed, and in which the
state was prohibited from establishing education or abridging the free
exercise thereof?

This confusion over freedom and socialism has been manifested by Bushnell's
boss himself, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. In testimony before
Congress last April, Powell praised Castro for having done "some good things
for his people," referring to Castro's having provided public schooling to
the Cuban people.

If the U.S. government permitted Americans to travel to Cuba and spend money
there, they would also find, in addition to public schooling, the following
government institutions: income taxation; social security; national health
care; welfare; occupational licensure; economic regulations; travel
restrictions; drug laws, and gun control.

The words of Goethe raise a troubling question, especially with respect to
the relationship between indoctrination and state schooling: Who are more
enslaved -- the Cuban people, who know that they're living under socialism,
or Americans, who think they are living under freedom?

Mr. Hornberger is president of The Future of Freedom Foundation
(www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va., which published Separating School & State:
How to Liberate America's Families by Sheldon Richman. Hornberger recently
delivered a five-lecture series on freedom at Francisco Marroquin University
as part of the school's 30th-anniversary celebration. He has also visited
Cuba.

[freedomcrusader]

...anti-freedom because they questioned such things as income taxation, welfare, and public schooling, all which of course are well-established governmental institutions in the United States.

All of those things have been entrenched for less than 1/2 of the life of the United States. And they all got worse under FDR, the only President under whom there was proven, high-level, Communist infiltration.