Democratic Socialism Leads to a Loss of Freedom

If we the people have to pay for your healthcare, your education, and any number of other “shared” responsibilities, than we (or our representatives) can and will start to put limits on your choices.

“That’s not true,” my friends who are self-declared “democratic socialists” declare. “People will have more freedom!”

That’s a nice dream, but the reality is that any centralized, publicly-funded system will include limitations. Some will be for good reason, at least initially.

Socialism assumes a radical Utilitarian view that what improves the lives of the most people must be the right and moral choice.

Individual cases are data, but no single point sets policy in centralized systems. “Best practices” and “evidence based” models set policy. That’s wise, in theory, when resources are pooled.

Governments limit choices to control spending and allocate other scarce resources. Sometimes, we limit choices based on the lowest-common denominator of agreement.

Start with education as an example.

The K12 system is general in nature, with only a few distinct “tracks” for students such as honors, college prep, and vocational courses. Some high schools promote career tracks, but overall the education remains broadly grounded in core subjects. In simple terms, states and their communities set shared course standards. There aren’t many electives, especially within English, math, history, and science. The classes are the classes.

The K12 system in many places struggles with funding, struggles to retain teachers, and suffers from crowded classrooms in crumbling buildings. Still, even most libertarians / classical liberals do support the existence of public education and even some limited state-supported higher education opportunities.

Schools offer a lowest-common denominator of courses based on limited resources.

If we are going to make college free there will not be a magical increase in the number of classrooms, the number of professors, and so on. With this limited space and limited resources — and a free price tag — we will see increased competition for the limited spaces at elite public universities. This happened in German, as an example.

If there are only X number of seats at a university, admissions will need to be selective. Whatever the standards become, some parents will invest in additional tutoring and supports to help their children. Some K12 districts will continue to outperform others. The middle class will benefit, especially the upper-middle. The poor might not benefit much at all.

Then, because we’re all paying, there will be increased pressure to graduate students from programs that help society. The land grant universities and the “ag and mining” schools were created to generate specific vocational graduates in the STEM fields of their day.

In Europe, Asia, and elsewhere with significantly state-funded higher education, high stakes testing makes our system look mild. Forget the ACT and SAT. Imagine sitting for a string of exams that determine what your college major can be.

If we are all paying for those universities, we get to help decide what’s taught. That’s what happens K12, and that will happen at higher levels.

As I tell my children, “You can study anything you want, as long as you study one STEM major.” You might not agree with that requirement, but my wife and I know from personal experience which degrees led to stable careers and which did not. Of course, if our daughters don’t want to study anything practical with a clear career path, they can work and take out loans. Or, they can accept our offer and select two major or maybe minor in their passions. The person writing the checks has some say.

If states or the federal government makes higher education free, there will be choices to spend effectively. Private universities will continue to be fine offering whatever majors they want. They don’t need federal money. Would some want to ban private schools? Probably.

I’m cynical. Parents with means will help their children. I will certainly help mine — we do, with extra supports and lots of educational materials at home.

Healthcare is already 50 percent government-supported.

The VA? Medicare? Medicaid? Federal employees. All taxpayer funds, and nearly half of health spending.

If costs are out of control now (and they are — because it is a distorted market), imagine adding millions of people and promising them absolutely everything for “free” or “no increase” in cost.

Most nations with national healthcare have had to add co-pays and scheduling limits because of over-utilization. Some nations limit the number of prescriptions they will subsidize. Promising no co-pays, no office fees, no drug costs, nothing at all that will dissuade usage… there will be a problem with that market.

Once people start to realize limits have to be set, who and how will those be set? If you want everyone to pay, then we should be able to set some standards for what’s allowed.

You imagine I’m being absurd, but if we’re all paying for the poor choices of others, then there will be pressure to regulate the “causes” of bad health. (People making bad choices led to some health issues, not the existence of fried, sugary, unhealthy food.) Banning sugary drinks starts to make sense if we al have to pay for lifestyle-triggered obesity issues. Regulating the calories on plates might be next.

When we have to pay for things, we won’t tolerate perceived waste for long. The majority will start to push for cost savings.

I don’t want to pay for your healthcare because you decided to overeat and never exercise. I don’t want to tell you what size soda you can drink, either.

I don’t want to tell you that you have to study engineering. (If anything, I blame easy loans for at least some of the inflationary pressures on tuition. I also blame state and federal mandates that have little to do with teaching and learning.)

There are no endless streams of money, experts, buildings, or time. Every nation national healthcare and low-cost higher education sets limits on access and usage. There are limited resources available, so barriers are erected to prevent overuse.

You cannot make people become teachers or doctors, either. What happens when you have “free” healthcare but not enough doctors? (We already have shortages in many places.) What about free education without professors? (We’re already heading in that direction, with more adjuncts than tenure-track professors at most colleges.)

My progressive friends point out there are plenty of people willing to be first-responders. Yes, and firefighters and police are among the best-paid city employees in most communities. If we pay teachers and pediatricians more, we’ll have more of them. But from where will that money come?

“They money is there!”

Actually, it isn’t. The federal debt is now over 100% of the annual gross domestic product, and will soon be twice the private industry gross product (GDP includes government spending). You can take all the wealth of the top 500 families and pay for less than six months of federal spending. Yet, most government we live with is at the local level! Let that sink in. You take all the wealth, there are still local bills to pay.

To pay for all these “free” things, taxpayers will want to have some say — because everyone earning anything will be paying something.

We will demand limits on spending, which means limits on choices and limits on freedom.

Maybe that’s the compromise people do want. After all, there are places banning some drink sizes and taxing “unhealthy” foods.