Henry Adams, a direct descendent of two of presidents, was one of the earliest proponents of what became known as “Progressivism.” In the late nineteenth century, Progressivism was taking hold of American elites, who hoped to perfect society by engineering social policies that would transform people into ideal citizens. Henry believed America’s individualist ethos stood in the way of this vision, declaring that “the American people are obliged to choose between the principle of individualism and the principle of socialism.” As Henry explained it, individualists sought to strictly limit the powers of the state, while Progressives—following the socialist principle—“would merge the personality of the individual into that of the state.” But what did this mean? First, it meant viewing “society,” rather than the individual, as the basic unit of social organization. Progressives believed social order had to be imposed uniformly by a coercive government, and that “society”—an ambiguous concept—formed the state, which then established an administrative bureaucracy. Second, it meant placing decision-making power in the hands of “experts”—or, government-appointed bureaucrats who possessed the necessary wisdom to determine what was best for the American people as a whole. Essentially, Progressives contended that policies should prioritize the needs of “society” above the rights of individuals, who they considered too ignorant and selfish to make their own decisions. Writing sixty years after Henry Adams, economist Friedrich Hayek defended individualism against the Progressive assault. “True individualism,” Hayek argued, “affirms the value of the family, believes in local autonomy, and contends that much for which the coercive action of the state is usually invoked can be done better by voluntary collaboration.” He believed social order emerged spontaneously as individuals interacted with each other, forming families and communities. To Hayek, the crucial difference between these philosophies was how they affected the decision-making process, which came down to questions of incentives, knowledge, and responsibility. In other words, who has the interests of your family in mind? Who best understands their unique needs and constraints? And who pays for the decisions people make? The Progressive philosophy holds the state responsible for these decisions, to do what’s best for society as a whole; that decision-making should be centralized because only professional bureaucrats have the necessary expertise to know what’s truly best for people; and that costs should be socialized—in other words, rural Floridians should be financially responsible for San Franciscans, and vice-versa. But the individualist philosophy recognizes that you care more about your family’s well-being and are more knowledgeable of their particular circumstances than Washington elites, and that the costs of any decisions should be privatized—you should be responsible for your own choices, not those made by distant strangers. The choice between these two philosophies relates to all areas of life, but perhaps nowhere is the difference between them more pronounced than in the decisions we face regarding our children’s education. ______________________________________ Want to learn more? For more animated content, check out Economics for Beginners at https://BeginEconomics.org. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-UMYt28NQw

Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture was presented by Joe Salerno at the 2013 Mises University, hosted by the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 23 July 2013. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33RXhv0IuPc