News-Record.com

The following is a Counterpoint column.

In his column “Assessing the public education foolishness” (April 13), Charles Davenport gave us a clue into his unique version of conservatism. Davenport cites as a great influence Albert Jay Nock.

Curious, I went to the Internet to find out more about Nock. Here is what I learned.

First, Nock described himself as an anarchist. Technically, Nock is an architect of an ideology known as anarcho-capitalism. Briefly, this is a philosophy which believes all major decisions that affect on our lives should be made in the boardrooms and back rooms of business firms and corporations, not in public forums like city councils, Congress, state legislatures or town meetings. Nock’s ideology is anti-democratic, since democracy subordinates the interests of corporations to those of society.

Interestingly, Nock was a pacifist. He protested both World Wars and was one of the few pacifists to continue his opposition to fighting fascism throughout World War II. His reasons arose not from Christian ethics but suspicion of America’s motives for intervention. I wonder if Davenport feels the same about intervention in the Middle East.

Finally, Nock was absolutely opposed to public education. His reasons, which Davenport references, grew out of his belief that social elites, the captains of industry, should have free rein to manage society. Educating the working class only provides them with means of challenging these natural elites and impeding them by pesky means, such as collective bargaining or worker safety and environmental laws. To challenge the ruling elite is to impede progress itself.

The trouble with any form of anarchism is that it appeals to romantics, but is a poor basis for a civil society. Anarchism is unworkable in the real world, for it places too much trust in the “natural goodness of the heart.” Real societies depend upon a system of counterbalancing forces and institutions.

The genius of our American Constitution is that it places checks and balances within the political system. The three branches counterbalance one another. Are there mistakes? Of course. But over the long haul the checks and balances prevail more than they fail.

Society also needs checks and balances. Under Nock and Davenport’s system there are no countervailing forces to keep the business sector in its proper role. Corporations would grow so powerful that community interests, the right of people to better themselves, even the health of the planet, would be trampled.

The writer lives in High Point.