Nampa school closures show why local decision-making is better than centralized | Opinion

The decision may have been easy, but sticking with it is often hard. New Year’s resolutions are often easy to make but hard to keep.

When it comes to collective decisions, the whole process gets even harder. The choices we make as a society often sound simple, but turn out to be far more complicated.

Readers of these pages know that at the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives, we examine collective choices, that is, public policy. Economics as a scholarly discipline has at times been referred to as the science of choices or human actions.

Over the past year, I have considered the public choices regarding education and the regulation of artificial intelligence. Whether or not you agree with what Adam Smith and others have to say about these issues, I suspect you can see that there are many questions to consider when a society seeks government action in these or any other area of our lives.

One branch of economic research looks specifically at the question of how people living together in society come to agreement on public policy or if they even can. Public Choice theorists have studied these questions since Smith and his contemporaries first demonstrated the public policies that best promote human flourishing.

Nobel prize-winning economist James Buchanan is one of the most well-known in the field of public choice economics, and defines it as “politics without romance.” With a basic understanding of human nature, Buchanan’s research, confirmed by others since his time, displaces the wishful thinking that public officials always aspire to promote the common good.

Adam Smith knew that individuals didn’t put aside their own self-interest when they entered public office. He argued even further that self-interest or selfish desires were heightened for such people, saying: “even the man of sober judgment often abandons himself to the general admiration.”

There are many lessons of public choice theory but consider just two. First, public choice economic models demonstrate that the real decision-maker is the person. That there are no organic decision-making units, such as “the people,” “the community,” or “society.” Groups do not make choices; only individuals do. If you want to change society you have to change people. If you “throw the bums out of office,” new bums arrive to take their place.

Second, unless our voting rules require unanimous consent, thereby giving any individual the power to veto a proposal that would cause them harm, or unless those harmed can relocate easily to another political jurisdiction, collective decision-making will always result in the majority imposing its will and preferences on the minority. Public choice theory shows that with any collective choice, the public’s interest is only protected if exit options are preserved. This generally means that collective choices are best made at the lowest possible level of political authority where people can choose to leave.

With these lessons in mind, let’s consider again the questions of public education and the regulation of new technologies. For public education the lessons of public choice economics call for more local authority and more individual choice. The political force working against this possibility is the extent to which the US Federal Government is now involved in public education through mandates and funding. Should we wish for “our kids” in Idaho to flourish, we should ask less of Washington.

This problem is evident in the recent decision-making process in the Nampa School District. Faced with a declining enrollment district officials were prepared to close or repurpose a number of school buildings. A federal program operating at one of these schools influenced the vote of enough of the trustees to choose to keep this particular faculty open, despite the relatively high cost imposed on local taxpayers.

The lessons of public choice economics always arise when new regulations of technology are considered. One segment of our society is always going to disagree with the so-called “authorities” that design the regulation. A collective agreement on the potential harm of any new technology is impossible. Thus, the role of government becomes one of only informing and policing the technology, not constraining its legitimate use. Federal, state and local governments must limit their role to the dissemination of information on artificial intelligence and prosecution of crimes committed by its use.

We all have to make choices every day, and the limits of our collective choices are clear. Let’s make a resolution to leave most choices to the individual and their local community.