The School Revolution (3 page)

The important principle of educating for liberty is consistency. There should be consistency,
for example, with respect to maturity. The educational program should enable the student to become responsible for educating himself within the framework of a specific curriculum. As the child grows, he should become increasingly independent from his parents, so long as he meets the standards of a curriculum the parents have selected. This places great responsibility on parents to decide which
curriculum is best for their child. But, as always, here is the principle:
there can be no increase of liberty without a parallel increase in responsibility
. You must always link those two things in your thoughts. If the parents are going to maintain the liberty to select the curriculum for their children, they must become responsible for selecting the right curriculum.

The
curriculum must guide the students both directly and indirectly. It must show the students they are capable of advancing in the program without parental nagging. Parents and student must interact with each other, thereby providing mutual support. The content of the curriculum must be consistent with the structure of the program. The content must show that with the expansion of personal responsibility
comes an expansion of liberty. It must show that free men are creative, and that economic growth is the result not of state interference, but of personal responsibility, individual entrepreneurship, and the reinvestment of capital. It must present the story of liberty in such a way that the student understands that what is true for him as an individual is true also of society. It must attempt
to convince the student that
self-government is the basis of
liberty
. This is the fundamental principle of the
content
of the curriculum, but it has to be reinforced by the
structure
of the curriculum.

If parents wish to persuade their children of the truth regarding personal responsibility and personal liberty, they had better choose a curriculum that is consistent with this
goal. If the curriculum teaches Keynesian economics, if it reinforces welfare state politics, if it teaches the principle of the autonomous sovereignty of the state, then it undermines the goals of the parents with respect to their children. In other words, the educational program is schizophrenic. Its content teaches a worldview that is inconsistent with the worldview held by the parents and
the very structure of the curriculum itself.

The student must become well versed in the principles of liberty, so that when he steps into the voting booth or onto the university campus, he understands the difference between liberty and bondage. The parents owe their children this kind of curriculum
before
they send them off to college. If the children do not understand the difference,
they will be subjected to the intellectual meat grinder that modern higher education has become.

I’ll say it again. The inescapable principle of liberty is that it cannot be separated from responsibility. This principle applies in every area of life. The fact that young children are irresponsible is the basis of parental authority
over them. Children do not possess full liberty. Education must be geared to increasing their level of responsibility, little by little, year by year.

There must be consistency in education. This requirement shapes both the structure and content of education. As children take on more responsibility, they must be given more freedom. If this is not done, they may gain nothing from the
college experience. Half of those who enroll as freshmen do not graduate. The transition is too much for them.

I
f we date the appearance of the libertarian movement to the publication of Friedrich Hayek’s masterpiece,
The Road to Serfdom
, which was published in 1944, and which I read in medical school, the movement is more than sixty years old. But of course the publication of one book does not constitute a movement.
The first libertarian organization to be set up was the Foundation for Economic Education, started by Leonard E. Read in 1946, as I mentioned in the introduction to this book. A decade later FEE began publishing its monthly magazine,
The Freeman
. That magazine became an important recruiting tool for the next three decades. I think it is safe to say that it launched the libertarian movement.

Leonard Read wrote a book in 1962 titled
Elements of Libertarian Leadership
. He begins chapter 1 with this statement:

The rest of Read’s book is devoted to an explanation for this discontinuity between rhetoric and reality. He blames
a lack of leadership, but a very special form of leadership: one based on self-improvement. He goes on to say:

I have always taken this advice very seriously. Even though I served in Congress, my goal was always persuasion rather than coercion. My goal was to do what I could
to take a stand against the extension of federal government power. I was not successful in getting any piece of legislation passed into law. But I made it clear—to my colleagues, my constituents, and anyone who happened to come across my writings or speeches—that my goal was to do whatever I could to enable others to improve themselves. I favored the restriction of power by the state because
I believed, and still believe, that self-improvement, self-discipline, and ultimately self-government make possible a flourishing civilization. I never wavered from that core truth.

I exercised a kind of leadership, but it was not leadership of the masses. It was not leadership based on the mobilization of voters to extend the power of the state. On the contrary, I did what I could to
warn my colleagues, my constituents, and anyone else that the United States faced and would continue to face a series of crises precisely
because
the federal government had extended its tentacles into so many aspects of our lives. Whatever influence I have had in American political life comes from the fact that I did not exercise leadership in terms of the prevailing philosophies of the role of
the state. I never recommended trying to capture the state; I recommended shrinking it massively.

Some people may believe that I was unsuccessful in Congress because I did not get legislation passed into law. But libertarian leadership is not based on political influence. Conservatives know the phrase “Ideas have consequences.” That is also the title of a book by Richard Weaver
from a generation ago. I believe the title is correct. People who want long-term influence would be wise to cultivate ideas that will have consequences. I viewed my role in Congress as being a representative of those ideas—one of which was this one: free people are more creative than unfree people. It has a corollary: if you want creativity to flourish, you must reduce the influence of the state.

I believe that all education should be education for leadership. Leonard Read was correct in his focus on self-improvement as the foundation of leadership.

Libertarian leadership is not about standing in front of a large crowd in order to mobilize them for action; at least, it is not usually about this. Sometimes you may get an opportunity
to do something like that, and I have been able to stand in front of thousands of college students to present the case for liberty. But that came only after decades of critical thinking about the principles of liberty, thinking about ways those principles could be applied, and making speeches in front of my congressional colleagues—which usually failed to persuade them to vote the way I was
voting. But here’s the truth: The important thing is not to get an opportunity to stand in front of fifteen thousand people and attempt to call them to action. The important thing is to understand the principles of what Leonard Read called
the freedom philosophy
, and to be able to explain them clearly to yourself and somebody else. The essence of leadership is not the mobilization of large numbers
of people. The essence of leadership is self-mobilization and self-government and, out of this, opportunities to explain to others why you believe what you believe. If people are persuaded that you are reliable and that you stick to the principles you say you believe in no matter what, they are far more likely to listen to what you have to say. Leadership is more often the case of one-on-one
discussion than it is standing in front of a crowd and giving a speech.

Think of your own situation. Maybe you do not want to be a leader, but you are convinced that the principles of liberty are practical. You are also convinced that, when they are implemented, person by person, the world is better off. You understand that creativity flourishes in a society that lets people
alone, leaving them to face the responsibilities and wonders and hardships of life on their own terms, to work to overcome obstacles on their own or with their circle of friends and family. You believe, in other words, in the idea of personal liberty. You would like to be able to explain these principles so that people you know will understand them and adopt them. You spend time reading. You spend
time thinking about these principles. You begin to develop the ability to articulate these principles in a way that others can understand.

Well, you have become a leader, even though your intent was not to become a leader. You merely wanted to improve your ability to express what you believed in, but in doing so, you inevitably became a leader.

Consistent living draws attention
to itself, even though the person who is living consistently does not proclaim this from a soapbox. It is the consistency of a person’s lifestyle that impresses other people. We have all heard the phrase “walk the talk.” It is an accurate one.

I have been working on a curriculum for high school students that is designed to help them understand
the freedom philosophy, and will enable them to articulate it. This involves the ability to read carefully, analyze arguments, write clearly, and defend their position verbally. I am convinced young people have a desire to find fundamental principles of living to stick to and hold as their own, and to conform their lives to those principles. In other words, I really do believe in youthful idealism.
I think we should understand and work with this characteristic of young people. They want to be successful in life, but they also want to be successful in terms of meaningful moral principles. They want to commit to something. I am firmly convinced that the reason I have been successful in attracting young people is because they understand that I am committed to a philosophy of life that is deserving
of commitment philosophically, but is also highly practical in terms of allowing creative people to follow their dreams and reap the rewards of their efforts.
The freedom philosophy is both idealistic and practical
. This is why it has, and has always had, such great appeal among young people.

One of the reasons that then-candidate Obama attracted so many young people during
his campaign in 2008 was because he came in the name of idealism. He came in the name of hope. Both of these are legitimate appeals. Both carry a lot of weight with young people. I never doubted the sincerity of his idealism. What I doubted was the practicality of a philosophy of government that presented the state as an agency of healing. I have no doubt that the philosophy of state intervention
is idealistic, but it is deeply wrong as well as impractical. I do not think that implementing a welfare state will produce the results that idealistic young people believe or hope it will produce. The expansion of state power into the lives of individuals inevitably leads to an expansion of bureaucracy. The bureaucratization of modern life is a blight on the soul of men and a straitjacket on their
productivity.

It is not good enough to be idealistic. Idealism must rest on a system of cause and effect that will produce the results that idealists seek. If the outcome of a particular form of idealism is the opposite of what the idealist has proclaimed as a major goal of humanity, then the idealist is misinformed. He might come in the name of the high moral ground, but the results
of his philosophy undermine that high moral ground. This is why the basis of libertarian leadership is always grounded in a system of cause and effect that rewards productivity, as assessed by customers, and promotes voluntary transactions and associations. It also rests on the principle of peace. The good life is fostered by individuals who pursue their goals in life on a peaceful basis, and who
are willing to bear the responsibility for their actions. This is the libertarian principle of
nonintervention
. It means nonintervention by the state. It applies to domestic policy and to the national government’s foreign policy.

You may not be young anymore. Or you may be a teenager. Maybe you are in between, or older. My point is this: Leadership is not a matter of age. It
is a matter of commitment. It is a matter of being able to understand the freedom philosophy and apply it to specific cases both in theory and practice. If you can understand cause and effect in the world of voluntary exchange, and if you can express clearly this system of cause and effect, you have what it takes to be a leader. Your continued program of self-education and self-improvement is a
process of education for liberty.

I realize that I keep coming back to the issue of self-improvement. That was Leonard Read’s point back in 1962. It is this principle:
reforming the world begins with reforming ourselves
. If we want other people to believe we are serious, they must be able to see consistency in our lives. Otherwise, they will not be impressed and will not take us seriously.
This is why libertarian leadership is so difficult. Jesus spoke about this principle. He said that we must remove the plank in our own eye before we are capable of removing the sliver in somebody else’s eye (Matthew 7:3).

One of the best programs of self-improvement anywhere in the world is Alcoholics Anonymous. People who suffer from
alcoholism can overcome it through a program of self-discipline and self-improvement. Part of this program involves bringing the message of sobriety to other people who suffer from alcoholism. The simple act of carrying the message is beneficial for the alcoholic himself. The program is based on multiple goals. The main goal is a desire to become sober and stay sober. Part of this program involves
helping others achieve the same goal. At the heart of the program is the lifestyle of the person bringing the message of sobriety. He has been able to stay sober for a period of time, which offers hope to the person suffering from alcoholism and who wants to get sober and stay sober. If the person bringing the message continually falls off the wagon and is incapable of sticking with the program,
the person receiving the message will find it more difficult to believe it and implement it.

There is nothing remarkable about the methodology of this program, in the sense that there is nothing remarkable about the motivation and the message. But the results are remarkable. Here is an organization that accepts no money from the state, that does not put anybody on salary except specialists
who are not members, and that rests entirely on the principle of voluntarism. Every member of Alcoholics Anonymous is expected to become a leader, to get a sponsor and sponsees. Yet he is also expected to remain anonymous. A member is not encouraged to build a large following. A member simply builds a personal following, and this following rests on a system of recruitment that rules out the
attainment of power of any kind. It is all done by example. As they say in AA, it is a program of attraction rather than promotion. It is enormously successful precisely because there is no way for anybody in the organization to achieve personal influence and power outside the narrowly focused activity of attaining sobriety and bringing hope to others suffering from alcoholism. I can think of no
more libertarian program than this one.

In the leadership training program I have been developing, I emphasize the following skills. First, the ability to think critically. Second, the willingness to act responsibly, taking full responsibility for your own actions. Third, a prospective leader needs to know the basics of communication. This certainly involves writing. It also involves
public speaking. Fourth is a system of exercises that help a person develop real competence. Competence is important for step five: self-confidence. Someone who is not self-confident about what he believes in, or also about his ability to improve his life in terms of what he believes in, will have a difficult time persuading others of the reality and legitimacy of his worldview. Sixth is integrity.
There can be no successful leadership if there is no followership, and there will not be followership in the libertarian sense if the followers do not trust the honesty of the leader. In a system of political power, it is possible to gain followers by offering to share power, even though the person making the offer is understood to be dishonest. That does not work for libertarian leadership.
Integrity
is fundamental because trust is fundamental
. Trust is granted by the followers to the leader. It can be revoked at any time.