Comments (23)

• Dave Weilacher

  Just keep doing what you are. It gives me hope. No matter how right you are, or how much I agree with you on the inherent evils of state, the only way to reign in the beast, is by educating the people in a position to make decisions (and those that vote for them) about those evils.

  What your story tells me, is that the ranks of reason may be growing. At some critical mass, we may start having a real influence over the "gov is good, gov is great, thank gov for being allowed to even breathe' folks.

  Published: May 5, 2006 8:59 AM

• Reactionary

  I had originally thought that Lew et al. were using the Left's Gramscian strategy against it. Now that the Left is supposed to be the libertarians' brothers in arms, I guess that's no longer to be the case.

  Published: May 5, 2006 9:52 AM

• Curt Howland

  Reactionary, you are in error. It is the left that is decrying how they are the friends of the common man against the present leviathan.
  

  This is no different than the right claiming to be the friend of liberty during the regime prior.
  

  Libertarians are still pro-liberty. It is the pragmatists that are the fair-weather friends.

  Published: May 5, 2006 10:07 AM

• HaHa

  I read this article and think, "Ah, maybe some converts in the government". Then I reach here:
  

  I am using the remaining months I have on the school board to try to make a change.
  

  
  Alas, this means what you have done is 1) have a moment of epiphany, 2) bask in the glory of a mises.org article and 3) continue with life as normal.
  

  If you disagree with the system, why not drop out of it? Why not resign from the school board in full public glare and state your reasons factually? Perhaps it gets a dozen people to think on the matter, and the rest consider you crazy. So what? The system remains in place as long as people are unwilling to drop out of it. Quitting the system is the only change that can destroy the system.

  Per the article, you recognise you are a hypocrite, and then choose to do nothing about it. Your passive continuation on the school board means that your insight goes completely to waste. Neither do you use it, nor do you communicate it to anyone else who matters, choosing instead to preach to the choir.

  Bravo? No!

  A crying shame.

  
  
  .

  Published: May 5, 2006 10:10 AM

• Reactionary

  Curt,

  Gramsci advocated the infiltration of a society's opinion-molding institutions in order to advance classical Marxism. The Frankfurt Institute took his advice to heart and the success of the cultural Marxists has been astounding. One might even say complete.

  Most libertarians are in fact cultural Marxists, so this may be why they feel Gramscian strategy is no longer needed. Walter Block forewent a similar opportunity as I recall.

  As I pointed out on another thread, once conservatism has been fully and finally destroyed, the Left will condemn their junior and very disposable libertarian partners as lunatic reactionaries, and continue the Cultural Revolution unabated.

  Published: May 5, 2006 10:41 AM

• billwald

  Are the majority of the people on the local school boards evil people or this strictly an education problem? If an education problem then consider the people on Fedako's school board who are familiar with Misesian economics - are they educated but stupid? If stupid, then what is the solution? Some kind of IQ test that candidates for public office must pass?

  If so, what if the people who run for public office have a higher than average intelligence which I suspect is the case (Bush excepted)? We want a community that only permits stupid people to run for public office?

  Published: May 5, 2006 11:10 AM

• Old Whig

  Great piece. How do you go about influencing government lovers to move toward free market solutions.

  Published: May 5, 2006 11:13 AM

• Reactionary

  "How do you go about influencing government lovers to move toward free market solutions."

  By infiltrating educational, political and media institutions.

  Published: May 5, 2006 11:19 AM

• F L. Light

  1
  As predatory governments would seize
  The schools, they offer drastic fallacies.

  2
  The central predators in Washington
  Have educative differences undone.

  3
  The central predators in Washington
  Have cheerless uniformities begun.

  4
  Of education vacuously large
  The buildings are, with politics in charge.

  5
  In philanthropic laissez-faire, dissolve
  The public schools where criminals evolve.

  Published: May 5, 2006 1:23 PM

• David K.Meller

  Congratulations on your courage for working in "The Belly of the Beast". The futility of your experience on a School Board will enable you to argue more effectively in the future (say before tha State Legislature or PTA) as an expert witness, for the complete repeal of compulsory school attendance laws, State certification of "teachers", mandated unionization, and other interventions. You will be able to argue more effectively, and probably to a more attentive audience, for the benefits of homeschooling, entirely voluntary free-market tutorial and learning assistance services, Internet-based education, and other alternatives as one who has observed the defects of the status quo from the INSIDE. You will find a much more attentive audience from the parents and (real) teachers in your neighborhood and your state.

  Reform is hopeless. You can help make the people of your state aware that something much better exists, and eventually help them work with you to repeal those laws to help them discover it!!

  PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
  David K. Meller

  Published: May 5, 2006 1:43 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  If so, what if the people who run for public office have a higher than average intelligence which I suspect is the case (Bush excepted)?

  Bush's IQ is significantly higher than average, even for a college graduate. I thought this was fairly well-known among those who pay attention.

  Published: May 5, 2006 2:21 PM

• Curt Howland

  Mr. Wright, exactly. He's no slouch at all, in fact I believe everything from "self denigrating demeanor" to "new-cue-ler" is entirely affected. He has studied hard to be perceived as a "common man" in order to get votes.
  

  No one makes it into such a position of power without being cunning, and he gives no impression at all of being cunning. That's dangerous!

  Published: May 5, 2006 2:49 PM

• Curt Howland

  Reactionary, the problem being that government tends to collect power to itself. What the "left" did was simply direct that power accretion toward their own ends.
  

  At the same time, the "right" directed that power accretion toward their own ends.
  

  The result being that they each back each others programs in order to increase their own power.
  

  A "libertarian" on the other hand tries to dispose of power. To eliminate regulation, tax, arbitrary control of the individual on all fronts.
  

  What you are arguing is that the "libertarians" joined the "left". That is simply false. The "left", when pretending they are out of power, present themselves as friends of "libertarians" in order to gain support for themselves.
  

  When the "right" is pretending to be out of power, they pretend to be friends of "libertarians" in order to gain support for themselves.
  

  The "libertarians" didn't join anyone. The very existence of a "libertarian" in a political office would be a thorn in the side of both "left" and "right", because they would never be able to count on the "libertarian" supporting their own program no matter how much they promised to support a program of the "libertarian" in the future. The "libertarian" would never propose a new program, only work against anything new and everything already there.
  

  That's why Ron Paul is called "Dr. No."

  Published: May 5, 2006 2:56 PM

• Ike Hall

  Bravo, Mr. Fedako. I think we have all had moments where we looked at the compromises we have made in our lives thus far and found ourselves wanting. You have found yourself at such a crossroads, and I think your solution is the right one. Take advantage of the fact that you are already on the board, and that you likely won't be reelected once you start speaking truth to the rest of the board. Never vote for a tax increase, never vote for new programs. Lead by example.

  Every day we make some compromise to Leviathan. Some days, compromise keeps us alive. But we must never yield in our rhetoric. Make us proud.

  Published: May 5, 2006 3:39 PM

• Roger Mitchell

  It takes a big man to publicly admit mistakes and failure. Well done! The issue now is whether your own personal "reform" is real and lasting or not. I hope that you have turned a corner.

  I have resigned from organizations in protest and accomplished nothing. I have tried to work within organizations and only succeeded in running into brick walls. Have you made the right decision? I don't know and will not attempt to answer or advise that. However, as one note above stated, I think you should go public with your change of heart. At the very least, people will discuss this issue and you very well may win a support base for your next endeavor, not to mention gaining respect for speaking the truth.

  Que le vaya bien!

  Published: May 6, 2006 6:22 AM

• happyjuggler0

  I have been on the school board for over six years and I can state that government cannot solve the current education fiasco, and never will.

  So far so good.

  I am using the remaining months I have on the school board to try to make a change.

  The implication of that statement is devastating. Did you really spend the first six years trying to be the first successful oracle in market history who could determine the best path forward without market prices? Yikes!

  To the extent that suburbs are more successful at putting forth less crappy public schools than their respectful cities, it is because these suburbs are in competition with each other. But they still lack a genuine market mechanism that allows crappy products to be bypassed entirely.

  If you are feeling exceptionally bold or foolhardy, then loudly use your bully pulpit to advocate for abolish government run schools and government funding for education.

  If you, as many, including myself, reluctantyl conclude "the people" will say you are insane and simply refuse to listen to you for saying the above, then their is a freer alternative to the status quo that would move you further away from statism. Vouchers.

  I am still in shock you didn't write an article stating how you spent the past 6 years pushing for vouchers, and how this tpye of person was sympathetic to your arguments, and that type of person couldn't wrap his mind around it for reasons A, B and C.

  And to make matters worse, you had an intellectual ally for at least part of the time on the board with you! Yikes again!

  Oh well, better late than never.
  

  Published: May 6, 2006 9:41 AM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  I have resigned from organizations in protest and accomplished nothing.

  That's not too surprising these days. Unfortunately, people are too watchful for the "self-righteous" to make resignation out of principle practicable these days. It's easy for the people remaining to send out the mistakes the resigner him- or herself has made, or whatever character flaws the resigner has or had, and watch people spread it around as gospel. It's easy to put questions to rest with "yes, everyone makes mistakes," supplying a few mistakes made by system people which were already explained away, and showering the exiter with pity. The ironic implication of the fact that critics get a free ride in the political marketplace is that the ones who stay in the system, with shut mouths and closed ranks, wind up looking like the "good Joes."

  Look closely at the movie Dirty Harry. It could have been a happy-ending once-only picture, with the happy ending being the result of Harry Callahan resigning out of principle, but there was enough attention paid to Callahan's own weak points throughout the film to make it a tragedy. Since American moviegoers couldn't accept it as that, there was a natural demand for sequels, with the theme of "Harry vs. the bunglers at the top" providing continuity to the series.

  Published: May 6, 2006 10:17 AM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  If you, as many, including myself, reluctantyl conclude "the people" will say you are insane and simply refuse to listen to you for saying the above, then their is a freer alternative to the status quo that would move you further away from statism. Vouchers.

  Let me supply some helpfuls rule of thumb. I tend to assume that any popular measure which is not being pushed by my likesake has already been considered and rejected by him or her. I should at least guess at the reason(s) why without personalizing any of my own hunches. If I make the assumption that I am the only one who has read a popular book which is still in print decades after its publication, then I'm being somewhat vain.
  

  Published: May 6, 2006 10:30 AM

• Old Whig

  "A 'libertarian' on the other hand tries to dispose of power. To eliminate regulation, tax, arbitrary control of the individual on all fronts."

  Right! Libertarians try to devolve power to the individual. Calling for Mr. Fedako to immediately resign, is a call for quietism and allowing others to take the reins. And we don't like where they're going.
  

  Published: May 6, 2006 7:36 PM

• happyjuggler0

  Hmmmm. Did I learn to spell "there/their/they're" in government run schools? Methinks I did. :o

  Maybe I should proofread my posts first.

  Nah.

  Published: May 6, 2006 7:49 PM

• Paul Marks

  A good case is solved by exaggeration. Prussia had a lot of government intervention - there was major decline in statism in the early 19th century (which led to a much stronger economy) and then (sadlY) a big incease in statism in the late 19th century (due to the influence of Bismark and others).

  However, pre World War I Prussia (or the German Empire after its creation in 1871) can not be correctly called "socialist" - statist yes, but less than (for example) the United States today.

  Government was big under Bismark - but there was a civil society, and taxes and regulations were much less than they are in most Western nations today.

  On service on school boards (abolished in Britain in 1902). You can only do what you can do.

  You vote for lower taxes and less spending, you oppose taking money from the State and Federal government (pointing out that this means accepting regulations from the State and Federal governments).

  Other people on the board (and the administrators) will point at State and Federal laws and the State Constitution (as interpreted by State courts) say you have to do X, Y and Z.

  You work to try and change the laws, and whilst they exist you work to do as much as you can without breaking them.

  Chances of any success? Nor high.

  But it is better to try than not try.

  Alternatively you can stockpile firearms, ammunition (and so on) for "the collapse".

  But surely it is the duty of a person to try and prevent such a time of troubles by reform (however unlikely it is that reform will go into effect).

  Of course, one can do both.

  And it is possible (indeed quite likely) that there will not be a full scale collapse - but a semi collapse. The bankruptcy of government (it has many times in many countries) without government (let alone society) actually collapsing.

  Bankrupt governments do not just vanish - they struggle on.

  So there is economic depression and vast and terrible poverty - but you have a chance to rebuild.

  Rebuilding can only occur if people are not undermined by statism - and statism will always be a problem whilst most people believe in it.

  And sadly most people do believe in it.

  Say a popular vote in your area about closing down the government schools - what percentage of the voters would vote "yes"?

  Understand how few would vote to close the government schools and you understand the scale of the real problem.

  It is not just government schools. Virtually all aspects of domestic statism have vast public support.

  Sadly it is not all a plot by wicked politicians - they really do reflect the wishes of most voters.

  Published: May 7, 2006 2:01 PM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  Hmmmm. Did I learn to spell "there/their/they're" in government run schools?

  Well, if you ever jump on board with the Democrats, you have a perfect issue to go with: the "unfair advantages" that the private school attendant has over the public school attendant. This issue is one of the mainstays of Canadian liberalism, and was even urged upon me when I was in grade 12, despite my more conservative bent.

  Published: May 9, 2006 8:14 AM

• Shelly Fedako

  I love you and respect you Jim., Your wife, Shelly

  Published: May 10, 2006 9:29 PM