Looking in the Mirror
Print This Post
• Email This Post
• 32 comments • 
Add to favorites 
Filed Under: Thoughts on Freedom
Tags: conscience • moral dilemma • public education • public school • State education • state university
Quite frequently, I hear, “How do you justify working at a state university and holding libertarian views? That’s hypocritical!”
The question is not as easy to answer as I would like–a fact that makes the accusation understandable (but, I hope, in the final analysis untrue).
My employer, George Mason University, is indeed a government-created and -owned outfit. And I indeed spend most of my time decrying government interference in people’s lives as well as decrying the taxation necessary to fund that interference.
How do I justify myself?
The easy answer is that our world isn’t ideal. In a less-than-ideal world, navigating reality requires compromises. After all, would you have me also not drive? Roads and highways are almost all government-owned and -operated.
Given that it is nearly impossible to live as part of society without consuming some government-supplied goods and services–and without helping to pay for those things (which is to say, without helping to encourage the state provision of those things)–each libertarian must make compromises with this reality. Each libertarian must do his or her level best to decide where acceptable compromises with the State begin and where they end.
Because so many universities are state-owned and -operated, and because almost all but a tiny handful of the “private” universities receive vast sums of government largess, working for a state university is, for me, an acceptable compromise. This compromise is even more acceptable when I reflect on the fact that the department of economics at George Mason University is by far the best department for the kind of economics I admire and I strive to do. I can best contribute to the scholarly endeavor and to the great cause of human freedom by serving on the GMU faculty of economics.
The above isn’t a bad argument. I believe it. But I confess that it’s not fully satisfying. Do I believe that argument only because by believing it I’m able to rationalize my employment at GMU?
Government-Issue Moral Dilemma
I think that the answer to the last question is no, but I’m really not sure.
Principles, after all, are ideals to uphold even when–indeed, especially when–doing so is personally costly or difficult. For me to resign my position at GMU Econ would be difficult (because I put great store in being part of a faculty that so deeply understands markets and values freedom). So perhaps I’m not as principled as I fancy myself to be.
On the other hand, resigning from GMU would not be costly to me in a monetary sense. A few private universities have offered me jobs with salaries higher than what I earn at GMU. My reason for rejecting each of those offers is that I feel a deep commitment to GMU Econ and the iconoclastic and pro-market role it plays in the economics profession as well as in public discourse. So by remaining at GMU despite more lucrative offers at private schools, do I demonstrate my commitment to the ideal of sound economic teaching and research? Do I demonstrate my commitment to the brand of liberalism that is so prominently featured and furthered at GMU Econ? Or do I demonstrate hypocrisy by continuing in the employ of the state?
These questions aren’t rhetorical. I myself cannot answer them with any great confidence. I’m pretty sure that, were I to resign from GMU (which is the largest university in Virginia), fewer young people would be exposed to my teaching and my writing. Given that my comparative advantage (such as it is) lies in introducing students to the economic way of thinking, would I harm the cause that I so profoundly believe in by resigning from GMU? Or would I further that cause by demonstrating my commitment to the principle of separation of school and State?
And does it matter that I have my 12-year-old son in private school? My wife and I pay the substantial tuition each year not so much because the government schools in Fairfax County are lousy (they’re not), but because of our principled objection to government schooling.
Blurring the Line
The larger lesson is that the State does more than act to protect us from violence–so much more, in fact, that it blurs the distinction between itself and society. I have no doubt that, were the government completely out of education, excellent private schools would flourish at all levels, from pre-K through post-doc. And I have no doubt that the quality of education would be greatly improved.
But the State is involved, and heavily. This involvement makes it artificially difficult for private schools to thrive. So should educators and researchers who oppose such involvement as a matter of principle content themselves to teach only at the very small number of schools that get no government funds? And should those libertarian educators and researchers who can find no employment at such schools find some other occupation, even if it’s likely that they can contribute more to the cause of freedom by teaching and researching than by abandoning that career?
I wish that I had unambiguous answers to these questions, but I don’t.
No Easy Answers
Another consideration turns on the distinction between choosing rules and choosing how to act within a given set of rules. It would be a clearer case of unethical behavior on my part if I voted for further government involvement in higher education than if I simply accepted the reality of that involvement–a reality unlikely to be changed any time soon. I can legitimately say, “I would arrange education differently, but because that power is not mine, it’s okay for me to work for a government school even though I would prefer that such things not exist. I don’t make the rules.”
This argument, too, has some merit. But it also has a weakness: Society’s rules often are changed by persons who refuse on principle to accept what seems inevitable. “Playing by the rules” is not a free ticket to violate your ethical norms.
The bottom line is that I don’t believe that I violate my libertarian principles by working for GMU Econ, which happens to be a state institution (although one that also receives a good deal of private support). But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for anyone to question me strongly and skeptically on this matter.
Comment by mgroves on 23 September 2009:
I struggled with a similar question regarding recipients of welfare programs. They aren’t necessarily ‘wrong’ for accepting these handouts–they are just responding to logical incentives. Why leave money on the table? The problem then, is not with the consumer of the government program, but rather the program and/or the government itself.
Comment by dave killion on 23 September 2009:
I see no hypocrisy in your position, unless you have suggested to people that they should decline to work for state-supported institutions while you continue to work for one, or that the state should cease employing other people but not you. I’m sure you would like to withdraw from Social Security, or MediCare, or MedicAid, but you cannot. You can only withdraw from the benefit, and must continue with the cost. And since it is likely that you pay out far more in taxes, etc. than you receive in benefits, it’s not even like you are plundering anyone, but rather being given back some of that which was taken from you.
Comment by Bo on 23 September 2009:
Well articulated, Mr. Boudreaux.
Another point: Is someone who uses their ideological opponent’s system against them a hypocrite, or just a shrewd opportunist? I would argue the latter.
If advocates of expanded government will pay you while you espouse contrary views, why not let them?
Comment by Juan Carlos Vera on 24 September 2009:
Estimado Don:
Es Usted un fiel guardián de la libertad. Proteger la libertad es, en su gran país, un servicio público en sí mismo. Entonces, solo por sus críticas al gobierno, muy bien asignados están los recursos que los pagadores de impuestos de su país destinan para pagar el salario de un sirviente de su calidad.
Comment by shankar on 24 September 2009:
Very interesting.
It is better when the top govt funded jobs are occupied by libertarians. That’s like gifting the Trojan horse to the advocates of increased govt interference.
Comment by Chuck Hicks on 24 September 2009:
Walter Block contributed an excellent essay addressing this issue, entitled, “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt & Punishment for the Crime of Statism,” in _Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in HOnor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf). In short, the libertarian college professor is receiving back a portion of what was taken from him by the State and using it to subvert the State. As Dr. Boudreaux alludes above, the State is so pervasive in American society that charges of collaboration with it are futile. The issue, according to Block, is whether one is part of the State’s “ruling class.” Neither the libertarian professor nor the welfare recipient are involved in the State’s policy-making and enforcement of legalized theft.
Comment by Mark LeBar on 24 September 2009:
Two things I appreciate about this essay: one, the engagement with the arguments and the conclusion you draw, and two, the spirit in which you do so. I face pretty much the same issue, but without other teaching options that I know of. My rationale, then, is that the state has captured the opportunities to engage in a legitimate and important line of work (that is, it’s not rent-seeking; in the absence of intervention people would still want it provided, though no doubt at some unknown level different from what it is now). Advocating anything less than the reduction of such institutions would I think be absolutely hypocrtical, and I don’t do that. But it is also too easy to take the easy way out when facing such conflicts, and I don’t know of any alternatives than to be as critical of and honest with oneself as possible. So your thoughts are helpful.
Comment by Bobbi Herzberg on 24 September 2009:
Well done!
This is a critical argument I have engaged in frequently since it is my situation as well. I have argued that if we cede the public arena to those who love the state and wish to expand it, we should not be surprised when in fact decisions go that way. Today with the decentralization of information through sites like yours, it is possible to engage in a more complete dialogue, but we should not be fooled that much of the expansion will be done outside of the public arena. I am glad Dr. Boudreaux is behind at least a few of those doors so that a Dept. like GMU can exist.
Keep up the good fight!
Comment by Randall Knapke on 24 September 2009:
I struggle with this same problem. As an Ohioan I am facing my 9 month of unemployoment because the only available jobs are below my unemployment compensation. I believe that extended unemployment benefits hurt the overall welfare of the U.S. economy but I continue to sign up for weekly benefits for self preservation.
Pingback by The question of libertarian hypocrisy – false symmetry on 24 September 2009:
[...] Bordeaux, from Cafe Hayek, writes some interesting thoughts on self reflection in The Freeman. Quite frequently, I hear, “How do you justify working at a state university and holding [...]
Comment by Steve on 24 September 2009:
Don,
I have a more personal concern for you. I worry that “the state” will one day cease to tolerate the GMU Economics Department as it currently stands. In the near term, I would assume they would not require you, as department head, to fire tenured professors. But what if they “required” you to hire professors that were not of the “masonomics” persuasion. I suspect that there are more than a few people in those “great halls” up the road from you that would love your department to go away. Maybe I am paranoid. But I do worry about it.
Your Friend,
Steve
Comment by SweetLiberty on 24 September 2009:
You ARE at fault and hypocritical for working in a state university when you have other viable alternatives available to you. We drive on government roads because we MUST drive on them – we are allowed no viable alternative. You teach at GMU because you CHOOSE to teach there. The argument that you may reach more students at GMU with your message attempts to use the very same argument governments use to justify their involvement – it’s for the greater good!
The choice is, for now, ultimately yours (until the government takes all choices away from us – for the greater good, of course). But make no mistake, you are NOT practicing what you preach!
Comment by John Cartledge on 24 September 2009:
It’s worth remembering that your paycheck, Don, isn’t funded by “the government”. The gov’t may cut the check, but your pay is funded (in part) by those who pay taxes. I see no hypocrisy here – you advocate for public policies that will benefit those who pay you. What’s wrong with that?
best regards,
john
Comment by terrymac on 24 September 2009:
The state will not go away until it becomes superfluous. You can speed that day by withdrawing support. This is why many people school their own children, defend their own families, and work in the private sector. Some day in the not-too-distant future, people will ask why they pay taxes for empty government indoctrination centers; why the police and military do not get real jobs, like the rest of us; why the Fed is still supported when the rest of us are using gold, silver, and electronic forms thereof. This day will be hastened when we find ways to render the government unnecessary.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 24 September 2009:
It seems to me it is a question of relativity. There are levels of commitment to a doctrine. Some are indifferent, some are fanatical, and most are somewhere in between.
You can argue that the government should have limits without taking it to the extreme and offering that one of these limits should be a prohibition on publicly funded education. Jefferson himself supported public education as being necessary for the good of the Republic. I cannot think of a better Founding Father to emulate than him.
I have no use for zealots. Too many of them do stupid things like crash airplanes full of people into buildings full of people. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously we need to find a more reasonable middle ground or we are going to keep getting lumped in with the Green, Peace and Freedom, and other “fringe” parties that have absolutely no hope of ever getting elected ergo no hope of being able to advance their agenda. We cannot do anything to protect and promote the Liberty we hold so dear if people look at us like we are Grade A whack-a-moles.
We cannot hope to rid the country of every tax and every infringement on our Liberties overnight. The nation has had decades of Social Security, Great Nation, and nanny laws and it will take time to wean them off of these concepts. There is nothing to be gained in supporting an all or nothing approach especially when history proves that the voters are going to keep telling us “nothing.”
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Seems to me the question is; Are we Libertarians or are we Loonies?
Comment by Warren Gibson on 24 September 2009:
Government jobs are either (1) jobs that no one should do or (2) jobs that should be privatized. I believe it’s OK to take jobs in class (2) as long as you favor privatization. But hazards remain. Working for a bureaucratic government organization can be corrosive to one’s spirit.
Comment by James Weicher on 24 September 2009:
“Each libertarian must do his or her level best to decide where acceptable compromises with the State begin and where they end.”
While I agree with you that, absent government intervention, we would have a flourishing system of education, pre-k through post-doc, I think that above quote hints at another aspect of the issue which may mitigate your circumstances: many libertarians will accept that there is a role for government in many different areas, potenially including education (e.g. I believe that educational vouchers are a reasonable means to promote market effeciencies in the education system.)
Accepting that there may be SOME role for government in education, we might accept that there may be SOME role for government to provide for state universities. I am not sure I believe that; however, as you note, the lines are not always bright.
We all clearly agree that the current level of government involvement in all manner of private affairs, from education to health care, to business in general, is outrageous, and creates far more harm from both loss of freedom and loss of productive capacity and efficiency, than any gains to the “common good” (whatever that is). But as to your moral dilemma, I would consider you excused.
Comment by Flash Gordon on 24 September 2009:
If we accept that the perfect is usually the enemy of the good and that most of life involves trade offs, having people with Don Boudreaux’s views teaching at state universities is a positively good thing.
If all the professors with a classical liberal world view were to quit, leaving these institutions to the total control of left-wing statists, the only tangible result would be that state-run universities would become even worse than they already are.
Comment by udctrox on 24 September 2009:
The logic given here seems pretty thin. Comparing a state funded institution to a road is a stretch by any standards. Putting your kids in private schools on principle while you violate that same principle by taking money from the government to pay tuition is hypocritical.
I agree that colleges seem to be left wing bastions and a sprinkle of libertarianism in higher education would do us a world of good. I would even swallow this excuse-essay if you had been a polite objector to state funding and government intervention. Instead, you are a vociferous belittler with considerable venom reserved for those against limited government, and it is not fair for you to be ambivalent in practice of what you’re bull-headed about in principle.
As for those Boudreaux fans who take everything you say to be gospel (something which probably makes you cringe too Don), I don’t believe their bunk that you’re some sort of a fifth-column at GMU Econ weakening the statism from the inside. I think you are just an opportunist like all of us, and you chose a job that is convenient & comfortable to you. No problem with that.
Lastly, none of this takes away from the reasoned analysis that you provide on a lot of issues. They ensure that I log onto cafehayek once a day.
Comment by Bill on 24 September 2009:
But if you’re a tenured professor at a public university, then you are a unionized government employee. I do not see how you could ever convincingly argue against unionization, government involvement, etc. in a way that sets forth any sort of moral argument against those things, or even that argues that private industry does better simply by virtue of the fact that it is private industry and not government. Surely you would put GMU, and specifcally the GMU economis department up against any number of private competitors, no?
Comment by Daniel Walker on 24 September 2009:
Prof. Boudreaux, I believe a liberal response to your dilemma would not be to advocate that you divorce yourself from your university but to advocate that your university divorce itself from the state. For all of us, as the state expands into different areas of our lives such as our occupations, we should not cease being ourselves or pursuing our occupations. Boycotts may boost one’s sense of self-righteousness, but they may not contribute to the self-actualization that makes individual liberty valuable in the first place. If the state interferes with your pursuits, whether in support or opposition, the liberal response is not to abandon your pursuits but to demand freedom to continue them and to continue them — to continue to live life to the best of your ability at every opportunity. To me, that’s the essence of classical liberalism.
Comment by ChristianK on 25 September 2009:
Many thanks for evoking this question as for the enlightened discussion, both of which are relevant to me in practice and in principle. Please let me paraphrase some of the arguments already put on the table:
- When government hijacks a portion of it, the free market is not a free market anymore but a rest market, a shadow of its former self. It would be impossible to operate a private institution competing against price levels and quality standards set by public agencies, even on a local level.
- Take Adam Smith: free trade champion that he was, he earned his living as a state-paid customs agent during the last twelve years of his life. And look what he did to the cause! He sure lived life best to his ability at that opportunity (I love that stance, Daniel Walker), and there is nothing wrong with doing so.
- A totalitarian (communist, fascist, religious extremist…) activist would never even think about this question. They single-handedly use all the tools of freedom (manners, freedom of speech, elections…, plus any other as they see fit) with the sole intention of imposing their beliefs on others. While such opponents are not defeated yet, one has to fight on their terms, deplorable as it may be. But then, a political life without antagonists, or paradoxes and contradictions for that matter, would be pretty dull, wouldn’t it?
Comment by MatthiasH on 25 September 2009:
I agree Christian. While being a libertarian myself I consider Libertarianism as an ideology and ideologies when taken to the extreme are not healthy. I hope that doesn’t make me sound like a liberal. In Germany article 5 of the constitution guarantess professors working for a state university total freedom: they can teach whatever they want (if Macroeconomics is on the timetable and they feel like biology they can do that and nobody can tell them off). That freedom was given by law makers who where libertarians. Sadly accreditation agencies try and take that freedom. And those agencies are private bodies. This shows problems in libertarian thought because a private agency limits freedom and the state gives it.
Comment by Chadwyck on 25 September 2009:
Thank-you for this great post Mr. Boudreaux!
As someone going into the public education system, I have reservations about my career choice. I agree with Warren Gibson’s distinction between jobs that shouldn’t exist and ones that are coopted by the government.
Both of you have given me a new way of considering where I stand on working for the government.
Comment by freb on 26 September 2009:
I think that a person who seeks to advance the cause of liberty should do it in the most effective way. If Don thinks his net affect on liberty from teaching at a better known government school is greater than it would be from teaching at a lesser known private school, then he should stick with his current job. If you oppose this view, then you should also argue that if Don were offered a job as Secretary of Education that he should turn it down on principle as well because it is an unnecessary government position.
We have to remember what our goal is. If liberty is our goal, we need to do what we can obtain it and not act as if we were already living in a libertarian society.
Comment by Brian on 27 September 2009:
It’s the difference between gradualism and abolitionism. The abolitionist will require strict separation, even at the expense of promulgating the ideas of liberty to the largest audience. No mention of the cartel in universities where the barriers to entry are high with tenured leftist professors dominating. Harvard is hardly the free market in as much as GMU. I remember Don when I was a student at a Young America’s Foundation summer conference in 1986. There is a saying, “Don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect.” Don has worked him way up over many years of work. Keep up the good work and not be distracted by the chirping of crickets.
Pingback by The Big Picture Storybook Bible « Ezra and the Farmer on 29 September 2009:
[...] and informed. I’d love to hear your comments on this issue, my struggle and my practice. (In this article a libertarian teaching at a state university has to deal with a similar [...]
Comment by Bob S on 3 October 2009:
Interesting article. I mostly agree with the author, and for the same reason that I support natural rights in the first place. There are MANY decisions that are of necessity judgment calls. Reasonable people may disagree, even when they both have similar principles. (Of course when they do NOT have similar principles, things get more complicated.) But in this case, speaking of people who support individual rights, we have a judgment call. That being the case, who has better knowledge of the situation than the man involved? Who knows his life better than he does? Won’t we get the best possible decision (other things being equal) when HE decides what is best for him?
Pingback by Boudreaux sobre ser liberal y funcionario, ¡al mismo tiempo! « Procesos de aprendizaje on 14 October 2009:
[...] Donald Boudreaux, de la George Mason University, escribió un artículo en la revista de FEE, The Freeman, sobre este tema. La forma de responder de Boudreaux me parece honesta y humilde. Piensa que no hay respuestas tajantes a las preguntas que se plantea, y a las aparentes contradicciones que existen. Concluye por ejemplo que: “I don’t think it’s unreasonable for anyone to question me strongly and skeptically on this matter”. Recomiendo leer el artículo completo. [...]
Comment by Gleason Greene on 18 October 2009:
Keep up the good work. Great to be able to preach liberty at the government’s expense. My concern is, when will they prevent the ideas of liberty, and those inconsistent with government policy from being expressed. At the current rate of managed thinking I fear further constraints are soon to come; the new internet bill being an excellent example.
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 20 October 2009:
Donald you are wrong to continue at GMU particularly if you have been offered positions at private universities. You voluntarily elect to work at a state owned enterprise and your excuses have no basis in principle. Driving on state owned highways which are virtually a 100% monopoly and voluntarily electing to work for the state when you have choices in the private arena are not the same as you well know.
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 20 October 2009:
MatthiasH – What nonsense you babble. The state gives freedom and the private sector does not. This sounds very Orwellian. Check your basic libertarian premises. Libertarianism is the extreme and ultimate – complete freedom of the individual and non-coercive. That is the goal and nothing less is accepable. Yes we have to make compromises such as driving on state owned highways but that should never never distract a libertarian from the goal – free minds and free markets.