Sure, we send them to Sam’s Club and Staples for supplies. They move chairs and boxes, collect fees at events, make copies, and man the telephones. On the research side, they are valuable assets to each of the research staff. Ditto the crew who have administrative assignments. These are the Locke interns. They are guest workers, of a sort, from a wide range of North Carolina colleges and universities. As mutually beneficial market exchanges go, we think this is a win-win situation, with a third win for NC citizens.
Relatively few citizens read current news; fewer read economic or political history; a handful may read economic or political theory. Everyone, on the other hand, from elementary aged school children up, feels entitled and is expected to have an informed opinion on every possible policy question that arises—from the local to the national level.
But informed policy doesn’t arise in a vacuum. Theory informs policy, and policy creates the institutions that direct our economic and political lives. So in addition to the trips to Sam’s, speaker events and other assignments, interns read economic and political theory in various forms, and consider the theory and practice of freedom as they encounter it here.
Here’s why I think this sojourn into theory is important. This summer, with the assistance of our intern staff, JLF researchers wrote and spoke on the following policy issues, among others: forced annexation, eminent domain, traffic congestion, N.C. energy policy, renewable resources, public school choice, and the proper scope of local government spending in North Carolina.
Student interns generally arrive with the vision of a North Carolina in which citizens enjoy maximum personal freedoms and a limited and fiscally responsible government, but it never hurts to get a little help from your friends. Enter nineteenth-century economist Frederic Bastiat, whose grasp of the fundamentals is essential groundwork for understanding opportunity cost:
“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”
Part of the reason I like to include Bastiat in our intern reading and discussion here is that his policy concerns are as relevant today as they were in the mid nineteenth century.
“Yes, so long as it is admitted in principle that the law may be diverted from its true mission, that it may violate property rights instead of guaranteeing them, each class will want to make the law, whether to defend itself against being plundered or to organize plunder for its own profit. Political questions will always be interlocutory, dominant, and absorbing; in a word, people will be continually pounding on the door of the legislature. and This is, in fact, what has happened. The prevailing illusion of our age is that it is possible to enrich all classes at the expense of one another—to make plunder universal under the pretext of organizing it.”
And on the French socialists, Bastiat’s comments presage monumental modern tragedies of economic and personal suffering. “Modern political theorists, particularly those of the socialist school, base their diverse doctrines on a common hypothesis, certainly the strangest, the most arrogant that could ever have entered a human brain. They divide mankind into two parts. The commonality of men, with one exception, forms the first; the political theorist, all by himself, forms the second, and by far the most important.” (all above from Bastiat, Selected Essays)
Is it important to understand the ramblings of some French philosopher/economist writing in the 1840’s? The intersection of modern theory and policy tells why the answer is ‘yes,’ and why it is important that it be accessible to practically everyone. Dead economic and academic scribblers have influenced the course of history, a fact noted, ironically, by one of the worst yet most influential dead economists in the literature.
Which brings us to Hazlitt—a sound economic thinker and fine journalist. In his popular writing, Henry Hazlitt, journalist, literary critic, economist, and philosopher described for the non-expert the consequences of pervasive socialism, and communism. Hazlitt treats modern policy questions—should local governments should build municipal golf courses, or public schools require more years, longer days, or participation at a younger age in their programs, for example—using sophisticated economic reasoning but every day language. For students of economic writing and policy analysis, Hazlitt offers a workable model. He urges us to engage in the ‘marketplace for ideas’ with his work.
In this vein our readings also encompassed Hazlitt’s novel of the progression from communism to capitalism: ‘Time Will Run Back.’ Back in print after many years, the book is a statement of why “if capitalism did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.” But I think it necessary to note, in these reading and dicussion sessions, that Hazlitt’s descriptions are neither fantastic nor exaggerated. Compared to history, where we see how theory and policy really intersect, Hazlitt’s novel appears almost lighthearted and gay in light of the factual chronicles of the age. And the ability to control the stories of political, social, and economic history have often meant the power to direct the present as well as the future.
We know that both theory and policy are essential. The intersection of theory and policy requires the ability to understand and articulate both—in hopes that North Carolinians as a result will become better informed, more free, and more secure in their rights as citizens. That’s pretty much why, besides assigning data entry, research, and paper shuffling, we take some separate time to discuss theory alongside policy with our intern staff. It’s win-win-win, in theory and in practice.
OK, now somebody please get the phones.