An interesting response to the public choice issue of school choice

Linked to the title of this post is an excellent article from the CATO Institute's blog concerning the very question I raised in a previous post. The main point of the article is that while many current school choice proposals are insufficient in that they do not model the options available in a true free market system, and furthermore that suburban parents do have an apparent self-interest concern here (albeit inaccurate), these issues can be overcome.

(Taranto is the WSJ author who wrote the initial piece concerning the self-interest of suburban parents.)

"According to Taranto, parents who are wealthy enough to pick from among existing public school districts and private schools “already have” everything that a free educational marketplace could possibly offer them. That’s like saying upscale Soviet apparatchiks already enjoyed the benefits of capitalism because they could choose between a Lada and Yugo. The system of schools we have today is not a free market system. We have a legally protected 90 percent state monopoly school system with a small niche of non-profit schools mostly serving the religious education market due to the “free” government schools’ inability to serve that niche. This hobbled and distorted system no more captures the full panoply of options a true market would provide than the Yugo and Lada represented the full range of vehicle options in the capitalist West. Furthermore, no existing U.S. school choice program comes close to creating a genuine free market in education, as economist John Merrifield pointed out in a recent Cato Policy Analysis (“Dismal Science: The Shortcomings of U.S. School Choice Research and How to Address Them”).

Getting Americans to realize what they’re currently missing is indeed going to be a tough hurdle for school choice advocates. But it’s a hurdle that can be overcome."

UPDATE: Yet another interesting take on these concerns surrounding school choice, this time focusing on the cost issue. Studies have shown that unlike most government programs offering improvements, school choice is one that is not correlated with higher costs. The author of this response article indicates that this is the most effective way of convincing people to support school choice.

Nimbys as the British Call Them

The conservatarian (no, that is not a Bush-ism, but I do think it is a rather clever way of joining the two) blogosphere has played host to the debate surrounding Obama's stance on the issue of school choice today. For those who missed out on the exchange, in short it seems that Obama, who himself sends his daughters to an upscale private school, does not believe that the same opportunities should be afforded to low income families unable to pursue such a choice with their own finances.

The arguments both for and against school choice are numerous and readily available, but one of the more interesting explanations for why school choice legislation is routinely shot down reminds me of the name given to such nay-sayers by the British, Nimby. Nimby, standing for "not in my backyard," or as today's Wall Street Journal columnist so aptly changed it to "not in my schoolyard," represents one of the major issues we face today in the realm of public policy. Those individuals who are currently paying for their children to attend selective schools are not exactly jumping at the opportunity to open the doors to anyone wishing to pursue a private education, and there is not much that supporters of school choice can do to change this.

Just as in the case of nuclear energy, it seems that the issue of school choice may be poised to fade away as an example of a change with both practical and idealistic merits that was simply pushed from one yard to the next until it ultimately hit a dead end. This is not to say that supporters of school choice, myself included, should give up the case, but unfortunately, like many public choice issues, this analysis does little more than present and clarify the roadblock to change without providing a mechanism for overcoming it.

Suggestions, however, are certainly welcome.

Random Unlawful Searches and Seizures on the Roadways: Unconstitutional but Nobody Seems to Care

At the end of May police officers in Belmont County, Ohio set up the county's first ever "drug interdiction" on the oft-traveled I-70. Equipped with drug dogs and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional protections of privacy afforded to individuals against such invasions, officers stopped motorists and proceeded to search cars for drugs.

This might prompt some people to argue that this type of search and seizure is warranted the same protections that the law seems to have afforded DUI checkpoints. Unfortunately, there have been no public objections to this practice (it was actually greeted at worst with confusion and at best with a sense of security), but for the sake of a hypothetical intelligent argument I will respond with the following: this is simply not the case according to the Supreme Court. And while the opinion of the highest court of the land may not matter to the Belmont County police force, the citizens who will be impacted by these measures- whether by the inconvenience of traffic delays or confiscation of property- should certainly take note.

In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court argued that unlike DUI checkpoints aimed at removing imminent threats from the road, police do not have the authority to search and/or seize drugs without a probable cause and a warrant to do so. They concluded that such "drug interdictions" are, in fact, unconstitutional. The intent here is crucial- if you are pulled over at a DUI checkpoint and a cop smells marijuana, that is indeed probable cause and warrants a search of your person. However, so long as the intent is to confiscate drugs, as was clearly the intent in Ohio, a search and seizure is, to quote the constitution "unlawful." This has several implications for those who wish to pursue them.

First, know your rights. Regardless of whether you have anything to hide or not, the fact remains that the police are literally not allowed to search you, your car, or any extension thereof under the circumstances of a random drug stop. Although the police oftentimes have a funny way of forgetting to remind citizens of their Fourth Amendment rights, we are entitled to them until the point that we tacitly waive them by consenting to a search.

Second, this practice will not and cannot change until somebody refuses to waive their rights and challenges the police on this issue. In the United States we have what is known as an adversarial system, meaning that it does not matter how unconstitutional an action is if an individual never has the standing to protest it in court. For example, the fact that I am a rights-obsessed individual who is bothered by these violations of our fundamental individual rights is not enough to provide me with standing to sue in a court of law. Until I am fortunate enough to be stopped by one of these officers myself, I am entitled to try this case in the court of public opinion alone.

Welcome to the Marketplace of Ideas

This summer I am interning at the Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia through my participation in a Washington, DC based fellowship program. Through this opportunity, I will be learning about public policy research and analysis while simultaneously furthering my knowledge of the central tenets of classical liberalism.

While I am in many respects a libertarian (note the small "l"), I am the first to admit that I have a long way to go in this pursuit of happiness (read:knowledge), and it is for this reason that I ask any other individuals generally interested in limited government and free markets to accompany me on this pursuit. As I read books on philosophy, political science, history, economics, and literature, I will post responses, summaries, and relevant present-day applications and disputes. As I come across various pieces of absurd legislation and commentaries, I will perform a similar function. Moreover, as my research gets underway and I begin writing more comprehensive works, I will post them here in abstract form or in their entirety. And lastly, should I come across anything of note in the realm of music or other venues of pop culture I may be inclined to opine there as well.

Thankfully (or hopefully as it may be), all posts following this inaugural will be far more interesting and engaging. I encourage people to post often, and while I may monitor obscene or irrelevant comments, the more challenging the response the better.

Welcome to the Marketplace of Ideas.