Freedom From Thought
by Max Raskin For most students, American history is an easy "A" class, requiring little more than memorization to do well. For me, it is a class that has demonstrated a truth that I now know all too well – the government is relentless in its self-gratifying publicity campaign, and will stop at nothing to promote itself, often at the expense of the truth. Its textbooks read as hagiographies, substituting thoughtful analysis for blind reverence. Although passed off as objective, public school history is far from it, forcing students to accept their highly flawed, statist paradigm. But I’m not buying it. As I libertarian, I support freedom, both economic and social, and oppose any restrictions on them. Seeing as it has historically been the government who has taken away liberty through its expansion, historians who portray such growth in a favorable light are inserting their own anti-freedom beliefs. Much like the Marxist taking classes at Wharton or the atheist attending mass, I find myself in an intellectual environment that I couldn’t disagree with more. Fortunately, unlike the Marxist (and I’ll reserve judgment on the atheist), I have the truth on my side. Far from being a full exegesis of libertarian theory and its role in history, I want to explain how one can come to libertarianism simply through sitting in a public school history class. The first thing I should point out is that I am a naturally contentious person. Whenever I hear a new idea, or one I disagree with, I am skeptical, and the debater in me kicks in. I like to think that this is a good thing. When the skeptic questions something, you should listen up. Now this all sounds good in principle, but what to do when I am in class, being lectured by someone I disagree with? Do I raise my hand at misinterpretations I see? Do I speak once a class, delivering a short speech that attacks the textbook’s main bias of the day (because it would take oh so long to go over them all)? Do I write essays on why the test’s answer key supports fascism and the end of western civilization? Or do I quietly resign myself to a silent anguish of knowing that nothing I can say will ever mean anything to these people? These are all questions that I have to answer on a daily basis, and as an individual, cause me a great deal of inner discomfort. Keep in mind, though, that this need not only apply to libertarianism; imagine an atheist forced to learn intelligent design day in and day out. The atheist genuinely believes that he can make the world a better place, yet no one cares to even engage him. What if he is right, what if [insert personal belief here] actually can change the world. Such blithe dismissal of his ideas can have a damaging effect on both him and the future of humanity. It is this forcing of ideas onto another that has lead me to believe that a person should have the freedom to choose what he wishes to learn and from whom, which is, in a nutshell, a decidedly libertarian idea. By forcing someone to accept your theory of history or your theory of science, you are doing nothing more than imposing yourself on him or her, and stifling his or her intellectual curiosity. What’s more, in the case of the public school system it is the state imposing itself, as it has done throughout history, on an unsuspecting populace. Am I wrong in pointing out the flaws with my teacher's approach to antitrust legislation? How could predatory pricing exist when under Rockefeller the price of Kerosene fell from a dollar to ten cents per gallon? Or the price of steel rails under Carnegie fell over 140 dollars per ton? Why should these "trusts" be punished if they raise the standard of living by cutting costs and raising real wages? Of course they shouldn’t be. Why should I have to subscribe to my textbook’s "Whig" theory of history? What if I believe that history is not an inevitable progressive march upwards? What if I believe that capitalism and liberty is what made America great, not governments and interventionism? The answer is that I shouldn’t. I shouldn’t be forced to do anything I don’t want to; this is the primary argument of the libertarians. The government, through excessive property taxes, essentially compels me into their public schools. No one, not even the government has the right to force its moral and intellectual beliefs upon you. We need to be free to think what we want and be exposed to new ideas. As a society, this principle is necessary for advancement, yet the government must stand opposed to it. It will not entertain any notion that it is unnecessary, and as a result, the populace suffers. In my high school, I am the minority. I don’t mind that. What I do mind is why I am the minority. It is not because my idea is bad or libertarianism doesn’t work, but rather it is because the state won’t allow others to be exposed to my idea. I urge everyone to carefully consider his or her position on freedom, without thinking about its consequences on your life or how popular you will become because of it. Only then can liberty stand a chance. November 28, 2006 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |