In the LearnLiberty video above, our own Steve Horwitz debates Jeffrey Reiman about the need for government interference to help children whose parents have made choices that leave their children at a disadvantage. This is actually part of a larger discussion I’ve yet to watch (see it here), but I thought I’d comment on the part on the short LearnLiberty video. I encourage you to watch at least the short video. Its less then 4 minutes long. The longer discussion is about inequality more broadly and sure to be as interesting!

In the beginning of the video, Reiman asks an important question: what do we do about children whose parents make bad economic decisions? I think Steve’s response is only part of a full response. To start, Steve asks what we should do with children whose parents make good decisions as if this question demands a response if we are to respond to Reiman’s.* Steve’s question is not, though, as concerning as Reiman’s. If what we are concerned with is suffering (because of poverty, for example), Reiman’s question is serious because children whose parents make bad economic decisions can suffer; Steve’s question won’t even arise if that is the concern. Steve’s question will have a pull on us if we are concerned to have equal opportunity—not just opportunities for all, but equal opportunities for all. If we want that, we should be bothered by the fact that children whose parents are economically successful will have more opportunities. Now, I tend to favor equal opportunity, but it seems that many self-styled libertarians do not.

Some readers might think that last claim is wrong, insisting that we all want equal opportunity. But many people that comment on the blog (I am not referring to my co-bloggers) seem far too concerned to leave even ultra-rich people with all of their riches for that to be the case. Its not possible, I think, to leave those people with all of their riches and simultaneously have genuinely equal opportunity. Children of the ultra-rich simply do have more opportunities than the rest of us. Now that might be as it should be (I don’t think it is), but if you think that, you should recognize you do not actually favor equal opportunity—certainly not as Reiman does.

To return to the main question: what do we do when parents make bad economic decisions? Reiman and Steve seem to agree that whether the system that best responds to such situations involves government (and, if so, how and to what extent) is an empirical question. This seems right. Of course, what the empirical evidence suggests is contested.

Reiman thinks that the idea that we can do without government in things like education is “highly speculative.” There is something right and something wrong about this. It is speculative to the extent that we can’t know with certainty that non-governmental institutions can provide education in our society as well or better than governmental institutions until we try it. But, as Steve points out, it is not like we are completely without evidence—there are examples of private education all over the world. Moreover, Reiman’s worry deserves a familiar response: pretend that the government always produced and distributed shoes; in that environment, the suggestion that private enterprise should produce and distribute shoes would be met with exactly the sorts of reactions most people have today to the idea that private enterprise should produce and distribute education—indeed, in that environment, the idea that private enterprise could produce and distribute shoes would be speculative. But that is hardly reason to think that it shouldn’t be tried. Similarly, its not reason to think it shouldn’t be tried in our environment with education. (I am not saying we should immediately end all government involvement in education. I would suggest we begin a change by recognizing the difference between government funding education and government providing education. Perhaps we first switch to ending the latter and keeping the former with vouchers as Steve mentions.)

A final note. None of this touches another, seemingly parallel, question: What do we do when parents make devastatingly bad decisions that are not about resources? Parents that decide its OK to abuse their children, for example. There may be parallel arguments to be made about this question as well, but I end here with that thought.

*Note: Steve also sort of asserts that parents are in the best position to judge what is best for their children, but while this is questionable, its also irrelevant to the discussion; I would guess that if the debate were scripted, Steve would not have said it.