For the Good of us All, Just Focus on Yourself

David Kairys

It took

some time, but I think I’ve come to understand why so many people favor school

vouchers. I was hung up on the separation of church and state and worried about

decreased funding for inner- city schools. But I’ve seen the light. My only

question now is why vouchers are proposed only for schools.


thinking behind vouchers is obvious. Choice is good, and the market will lead to

overall improvement. People will get what they’re willing and able to pay for.

We’ve been

overdoing that feel-good, liberal community stuff for too long. We’re trying to

live like those weird Europeans, who in some countries actually pay the same

taxes and insurance premiums no matter where they live! When you share the

burdens of catastrophes like that, the people who experience losses do fine, but

those who don’t get penalized.

To justify

such silly sharing, you must rely on warped thinking, like "there, but for

the grace of God, go I." Real wimpy.

And some

of those countries even provide health care to everybody, and a good, free

education — including college — to everybody who qualifies. It would just

lower us all if everybody got good education. Sure, we’d be a better educated

country, but we’d all suffer for it.

So I’m

convinced. But I don’t see any reason to limit this great idea to education. Why

should I be paying for the fire department? I’ve never had a fire at my house.

I’m really careful about it. I’d prefer a fire voucher, so I can contract for

the service outside of government.

I could

get a contract, but without a voucher, I’d be paying twice — you know, paying

my taxes and then paying again for the private service. The government should

send bills to people who use fire engines.

This would

really lower taxes. Let’s include the library (want a book? pay a share of the

total costs for libraries), street maintenance (pay when your street is fixed)

and so on.

I don’t

know why people without kids in school should pay taxes for education at all.

Taxes should be treated as a bill for the government services we want to buy

because they benefit us.

And how

about the police? I live in a good neighborhood, and I pay for a home security

system, so why should I be footing the bill for those who are too cheap and then

get robbed? We should get police vouchers, or government should send folks a

bill for each use — maybe double the amount if it turns out there wasn’t

really an emergency.


Americans don’t need anything from government. Nor do we have any personal stake

in anybody else’s education, or well-being for that matter. This country would

be just fine if we return to values, and the top value is look out for yourself.

Don’t worry about others or the "community," whatever that is. The

market will take care of them.

The trick

is to fight those soppy sympathies that don’t really help anybody. Stop yourself

whenever you start thinking about others.

This may

sound harsh, but it’s for our own good. We should treat everything, and maybe

everybody, as a commodity. You get what you pay for. This is the direction we’ve

been taking at least since President Reagan, who was so good at helping us

understand the intrinsic nobility of single-minded self-interest. Sure,

sometimes it seems like nothing holds us together as a nation, no common

understanding or goals or any sense that we’re in this together, rather than

just happening to inhabit the same area of the world. But freedom — not having

to answer to or care about anybody else — is so fulfilling.

It may

sound ironic or just plain wrong to some, but selfishness and greed build

community well-being and raise the spirits of all. We need to stop thinking

about others and get back to consuming and praying.


Kairys, a law professor at Temple University, is the editor of the 1998

edition of "The Politics of Law." He wrote this for the Philadelphia

Inquirer, where it was published on July 15, 1999.

Leave a comment