Are You Pro Food Choice?

"It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense." Robert Green Ingersoll


Imagine that, by some quirk of societal evolution, food preparation and distribution has become an accepted responsibility of the government. Try to conceive of a society, take the United States, which, for the past hundred years or so, has controlled food preparation in the form of a governmental monopoly on restaurants. Privately owned farms and companies still grow and process the food, but they sell their products almost exclusively to the government. All eating establishments are government owned and operated and funded through property and other taxes. Most have historically been controlled and regulated at the state and local level. Citizens pay their taxes and are able to go to the restaurants “free of charge” with the caveat that they must eat only at the restaurants in their home district. You pay the same taxes whether you are a single diner or a family of four.

These government-run restaurants do not need to compete for customers, so there is little incentive to provide a decent product. Without competition, predictably, the food is not very good, but we eat it because it is all we have ever known. The chefs, cooks, and wait-staff are mostly unionized. Their union bosses have negotiated highly favorable contracts with the government that not only raise labor costs without a corresponding increase in quality, but also make it nearly impossible for restaurant staff to be fired. State and local governments go into massive debt to pay the unfunded pension obligations of the unionized food workers. Some people complain about the poor quality of food and service at government-run restaurants. The government’s solution is to raise taxes in order to give more money to the failing public restaurants. The federal government steps in and establishes the Department of Eating. The DOE uses tax dollars collected from the citizens of the various states, skims off its cut, and then sends money back to the states to spend on public restaurants. Interestingly, studies show that even with an increase in government spending on public eating, food quality continues to either decline or remain flat. Meals in the United States consistently rank among the lowest compared with meals in most industrialized nations. It is universally acknowledged that we have a “crisis in our restaurants.” A well-meaning Congress and President pass and sign into law the “No Diner Left Behind Act” which imposes more mandates, regulations, and accountability on public restaurants.

Like all monopolies, the governmental monopoly on restaurants and its unionized workers fear competition. The result is legislation and bureaucratic regulations that inhibit the growth of “private” restaurants. Some states even crack down on those who choose to “home dine” by insisting that home-diners be licensed certified chefs. Critics of “restaurant choice” and the privatization of the eating system scoff at any proposal that threatens the strength of the government and the unions to make decisions over what people eat. They claim that it has always been government’s role to feed the people and that there is no place for “profit” in the nutrition system of the United States. People are skeptical, too, even as they continue to attend failing government-run restaurants. They have always gone to public restaurants and are apprehensive of change that has been deemed “radical” by opponents. It is difficult for some people to conceive of a system of privately run restaurants. Who will pay for the meals? How will we know that the food is safe or nutritious? What will we do with the existing public restaurants? Will greedy restaurant owners put profit above the well-being of diners?

Now, imagine that, by some quirk of societal evolution, K-12 education has become an accepted responsibility of parents and families. Try to conceive of a society, take the United States, where, for the past hundred years or so, parents have been free to choose where and how their children are educated within a privately operated, free-market educational system . Property and other taxes stay dramatically low or are non-existent. Parents use the extra money saved by paying lower taxes to invest in their own children’s education, choosing from a multitude of schooling options. Educational institutions compete to provide the best quality at the most reasonable price. Some schools specialize in certain subject areas. Parents can choose to send their child to a school that puts a higher emphasis on languages, fine arts, sciences, or a particular trade skill. With the proliferation of online curriculum and home-schooling support, many parents choose to educate their children at home.

Yes, profit is part of the system, and that is a good thing. Mismanaged or inferior performing schools are unable to compete with schools of a higher quality and go out of business. Better schools attract more students, which increases profits, which allows schools to expand, which offers more opportunities for even more students. Low-interest education loans are available. Students from low-income families receive scholarships from private schools, religious and community organizations, and other charities. Businesses and individuals are encouraged, through tax deductions, to provide scholarships.

Parents have a greater direct investment in their children’s education and are therefore more actively involved in the process. Standardized test scores are high, and American students consistently rank near the top when compared with students from other industrialized countries.

If you are pro food choice when it comes to dining out, why would you not be pro school choice when it comes to educating your children?

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!