Whether Tami was right or wrong is immaterial. The point is, as principal of the public school, the only recourse parents opposed to her decision and character had was to petition the school board to have her fired. And barring the school board supporting this petition (which initially it did not) all disgruntled citizens really could do is place harassing phone calls to Tami, write outraged OpEds and stage rallies.

What do you notice is not on their list of options? Two things of course. First is that if they are parents, they have no choice whatever about who the principal of their children would be. If they live in West Dillon, their kids must attend West Dillon. And this is a poor town – no private schools to seriously choose from either. The second thing, true whether they are parents or not, is that their tax dollars must be used to support this principal they despise. They get no refund, no better service … nothing. They just put up with it.

Not much deep insight here, but seriously compare that to the world of market competition, a world where people paid to send their children to the school of their choice. Rather than parents resorting to protesting, rioting, crank calling, and calling for the head of someone that they happen to disagree with, they simple exercise their free will and withdraw their support from such a school and principal. We know how absurd the current system is – it wastes money, it is the playground of the teachers’ unions, it is the keystone to political demagoguery of all kinds, and in many places is very ineffective at educating children. That all aside, the education system as we have come to know it breeds contempt, mistrust, apathy, anger, resentment and intolerance. My family is fortunate enough to have a fairly affordable Catholic school nearby, and this is where we choose to send our children. That still costs a lot. For PreK we are spending over $3,000 per year, and that is for a total of 12 or so class hours per week. In a year or two that will run up to over $8,000 and by high school it will run us over $16,000 (we have two kids at this point). Further, we have an income (while certainly comfortable for us) that is below the median in our school district. We pay for the children of the richer families to go to school for “free” which is especially aggravating as their families take their vacations in the Caribbean, have second homes, have big boats and fancy houses. We could have some of that too if we just leeched off of the other taxpayers. You might call us irrational – after all, we did pay lots of money in taxes, you might argue that it would only be right to get our share back. But that is not right in our mind – and we will explain why shortly.

The point is, I resent my neighbors, I resent the things that are being taught in the public schools, I resent the hefty benefit packages of the teachers unions, I resent to spectacular facilities provided to the government school kids … and I still have to pay for it. Don’t like it? Move. Well, that’s not really an option is it. Not only would that require me severing every connection from civil society that I cherish, that would not protect me from paying taxes somewhere else. So at best we can have our income stolen from us, while we pay extra for a lower quality catholic school experience. At least I don’t have to regularly call for the head of the school principals who preside over an indoctrination of students that I cannot stomach. At least I can prevent our children from growing up as members of the state congregation. Just think of how different things would be if schooling were treated like, say, food?

Indeed, much of what we find beautiful and compelling in nature is driven by differences. The deserts of central California are beautiful when standing in contrast to the lush forests nearby. The oceans would get rather boring for many if in fact all we did was see … oceans. Pigeons are not exactly viewed as precious birds, whereas the Condor sure does get a lot of respect.

The reason I mention this is that in reading lots of the ecological and environmental literature, I see many writers clamoring for a return to nature or something along those lines. It should also be noted that a good portion of these writers are communitarian at their mildest, and outright egalitarian socialists otherwise. But can it be the case that you wish for man to return to the state of nature, or for us to achieve a “proper balance” with nature, and then also try to command a society where all resources are shared equally? In the state of nature, the only resource which seemed to have been shared equally was air, and that is only because for all intents and purposes air is not very scarce. Otherwise, to return to the state of nature as the ecolocals would have us do would then be an admission that pre-existing and “natural” inequalities are acceptable and desirable. I doubt that the ecolocals would support such a claim, but it is sitting right there like an ugly zit on their faces when they tell us we need to go back to nature.

In Anatomy of Disgust, William Ian Miller argues that disgust comes from one of two places:

1. It is a biological reaction to something that is naturally bad for you – thus it is an innate feature of us as humans.
2. It is a learned reaction – this is the view of anthropologists.

There have been dozens of studies which seem to confirm the first view. The second view has some support from the behavior of children, who do not seem disgusted by some of the things we tend to  be disgusted by as adults, such as various worms and bodily fluids. In terms of why bad economics, particularly that flaunted by “enlightened progressives” who think nothing of enacting “living wage” laws of $10 per hour, or padding the pensions of “overworked and horribly treated” public employees (yes, you may laugh now), or what other cockamamie idea that have which flies in the face of theoretical and empirical economics, and also thousands of years of unintended consequences from other similar cockamamie ideas.

Since my parents and schoolmates and teachers were all economic illiterates, I cannot find a reasonable way that I have learned to have this feeling of disgust. It emerged through my life, and I can remember some of it from an early age (mainly surrounding the way the Mets handled their payroll). So if we take the view that (1) is the correct origin of disgust, then it must be the case that the reason I react the way I do is that good economics is essential for the survival of our species.

The only problem with my theory is that self-styled progressives don’t find each other unattractive or unable to reproduce (although my bet is they reproduce less than non-progressives) – so if practicing good economics was essential to species survival, I would not observe this. But a walk around any college campus should be enough to provide some evidence that bad economic beliefs do not make one unsuitable for a mate.

Nonetheless, good economics is essential for the survival of those grounded in reason and science, and not in mysticism and unicorns. I cannot control my disgust although I do my very best to temper it for the sake of discourse. I would add that I do not get disgusted in the world of uncertainty, when proponents of a view that is alternative to one I hold, but to which neither party had evidence to support it, argue strongly for their position. For example, I feel like we would have gotten to the moon if NASA did not do it. Lovers of government do not believe so. But this is one that cannot be settled – and if my belief was proven wrong, that would not be damaging for the survival of reason and rationality, it would clarify my understanding of the collective action problem.

Contrast that to how “progressives” get disgusted by people like me. They are disgusted that I cherish freedom, that I allow people to make their own decisions, even if they might make mistakes, they are disgusted that I appreciate the spontaneous order of economic and social life and reject the top down construction of societies, they are disgusted when they learn that minimum wages do not help the poor, or that more money on foreign aid does not solve the poverty problem, or that subsidies for “green energy” not only do not work, they make the “problem” worse, and so on. Rarely if ever do I get data or empirical evidence shown to me – I just get an ad hominem attack thrown my way or a comment that “well, I need to think about it more.”

I sense that this supports the biological theory again. The “progressive” dismissal of good economics by marginalizing the writer, by using ad hominem attacks, by equating economists to racists, and Hitlers and all manner of things, is a biological reaction – it is a way to deny that their thinking is weak, dangerous and faulty – and helps preserve that wonderful candyland in their brains which allows them to continue living their lives and propogating without ever having to deal with reality. They are able to do this because the incredible wealth producing machine that is capitalism can stand a heck of a lot of damage before it stops working – so we continue to get richer despite the “progressives.”

Here is the last edition in this series.

1. The city of Cleveland operates a public grocery store called the West Side Market. It boasts organic foods, unique specialty items, and personal service (the DMV boasts that too, you have to deal personally with them). It looks quite nice from the pictures. But typical of government it is only open for 4 days a week, and less than 12 hours each of those days. And given that it doesn’t have to keep the lights on very long, and it is such a totally cool and awesome and ethical place to shop, it should be obvious that the city manages to … lose … money on the market.
2. And because the czars in central cities think they know anything about economic redevelopment, any grand idea they think up must certainly revitalize the city. My old hometown of Pittsfield, Massachusetts spent $10 million on an old fashioned movie theater. Let’s see how much that sparked resurgence.  In Cleveland, the city is spending taxpayer money on a medical convention center that will turn Cleveland into a “Disney World” for doctors! Remember this?

Rape seems to be pretty “natural”, but I’d still like to build social institutions that fight this “natural instinct”.

I don’t have any nits to pick on the topic of monogamy, I am thinking, rather, of how one can apply Megan’s thought to other “natural” things. Being an environmental economist that seems to be a pretty helpful thought. More to come.

Is there another way to think about such a thing? Well, people argue that education is essential, and that some (many?) people are either too inconsiderate or too stupid to put their kids to school. If I buy that argument, then should it not also be applied to other things which are important to children and families? Is food as important as schooling? Food, the last I looked, was mostly privately provided and purchased, and yet I have rarely, if ever, seen or heard people speculating about people being too selfish or too short sighted to provide food for their children. So, if you you agree that people would provide something as essential as food, and if formal education is as important as you claim it to be, then how can you make the claim that people would not try to educate their children adequately?