resent a shrinkage, not an expansion, inrnthe welfare state. On the other hand, therncomparison witli food stamps is apt, butrnRockwell does not carr}’ it through. Hernmaintains that vouchers will inevitablyrnlead to tighter government controls onrnprivate schools. Have food stamps led tornsuch controls on grocer}’ stores? Governmentrnpower to regulate private schoolsrndoes not deri’e from government financingrnof schools but from compulsory education,rnwhich requires the governmentrnto specify the type of education that satisfiesrnthe rec[uirement.rnReferring to the recent WisconsinrnSupreme Court erdict on the constitutionalit}’rnof the Wisconsin voucher law,rnRockwell writes: “Those who actuallyrnread the decision will find that in order tornreceie vouchers, religious schools willrnhave to surrender all control over admissionsrnand gut any doctrinal teaching.” Irnhave read the decision —all 68 pages —rnand base found no such thing. It isrnRockwell’s gloss on certain provisions ofrnthe Wisconsin law that were restated byrnthe judges in explaining the basis forrntheir decision—a gloss with which I differrnand which refers to provisions confinedrnto Wisconsin. One thing that I dornfind in the decision is the statement thatrnEnforcement of these minimalrnstandards will require the State Superintendentrnto monitor the qualih-rnof secular education at the sectarianrnschools participaHng in thernplan. But this oversight already exists,rnhi the course of his existingrnduties, the Superintendent currentl}’rnmonitors the qualit}- of educationrnat all sectarian privaternschools.rnEnough nit-picking, with one exception.rn”The idea of vouchers,” Rockwellrnwrites, “originated on the neoconservati’rne right with Milton Friedman”—a litmusrntest for me of Rockwell’s reliabilit}’.rnI am not now and never have been arn”neoconserxative” —nor any other kindrnof consenative. I am and have been forrnmore than half a centur- a classical liberalrnor, in modern parlance, a limited-governmentrnlibertarian. But I value as alliesrnon particular issues persons of any persuasioji,rnincluding those whom Rockvrnell labels “big-government libertarians”rn(an oxmoronic species I have never personallyrnencountered) and “equalit)- achrnists of all stripes,” as well as libertariansrnand conservatives of all varieHes.rnLet me end on a positive note. Therernis enough left of our federalist system sornthat different educahonal reforms will bernenacted in different jurisdictions. At thernmoment, Milwaukee and Cleveland arernthe two main public voucher experiments.rnThere is also a wide range of privaternvoucher experiments. Arizona is inrnthe forefront of charter school innovation.rnMinnesota is leading on tax creditsrnand deductions. Other experiments arernbubbling around the nation. We shallrnsee whether my optimism or Rockwell’srnpessimism is justified.rnI first suggested educational vouchersrnas a means to implement parental choicernand improve our educational systemrnmore than 40 ears ago, and I have beenrnclosely connected with the movementrnever since. Until recent years, ever)- attemptrnto introduce such a system —inrnNew Hampshire, Connecticut, Michigan,rnOregon, Colorado, California—hasrnbeen defeated by the well-financed oppositionrnof the vested educational interests,rnnotably the teachers’ unions. Forrnthe first time, the vested interests are beingrndefeated here and there and are onrnthe defensive. I believe there is a realrnchance for a breakthrough that will leadrnto an unrestricted voucher system generatingrnmajor improvements in the qualityofrneducation and setting us on the road torngetting government out of the classroom.rnIt is tragic that, just as the first blades ofrngrass are breaking their wa’ through thernconcrete opposition of the vested educationalrninterests, believers in human freedomrnshould seek to crush them in thernname of a Utopian vision.rn—Milton FriedmanrnSenior Research FellowrnHoover InstitutionrnStanford, CArnMr. Rockwell Replies:rnMany thanks to Professor P’riedman forrnhis thoughtful reply. I’m especiallyrnpleased that he accepts my analog}’ withrnthe famously corrupt food-stamp program.rnFirst, grocerv stores rank among thernmost heavily regulated (and unionized)rnof retailers, and only by adhering to go’-rnernment dictates can they redeem thernstamps. Church-based soup kitchensrnmay not (nor should they aspire to). Second,rnfood stamps don’t help the poor;rnthey only make them more dependentrnon government, a point I would need tornexplain in the Nation, but not in Chronicles.rnThird, the lobbying force behindrnfood stamps is not the poor but the agriculturalrnindustr}’, which government interventionrnhas transformed from independentrnfarmers into a grasping specialrninterest. The prospect of school vouchersrnhas done this to the private-schoolrnindustry as well. Fourth, it is surely morernimportant to keep government out ofrnthe classroom than the grocery store.rnSchool vouchers are a welcome mat forrnLeviathan. Regarding the Wisconsinrncourt decision, the words cited by ProfessorrnFriedman are perfunctor’ and contradictedrnby the clear language of the legislationrnin question; Voucher-takingrnschools must have random admissionsrnand must not integrate religion into theirrncurricula.rnFinally, I didn’t address ProfessorrnFriedman’s idealized voucher programrnbecause I wanted to stick to real-worldrnexamples and propose real-world alternatives.rn”Utopian” is a good word to describernthose who think government canrnfund private schools without wreckingrnthem and bankrupting us. I can’t put itrnbetter than Professor Friedman himselfrndid in Free To Choose, in a discussion ofrnfood stamps and other forms of public assistance:rnThe relief rolls grow despite growingrnaflluence. A vast bureaucracvrnis largely devoted to shuffling papersrnrather than to serving people.rnOnce people get on relief, it isrnhard to get off. The countr}’ is increasinglyrndivided into two classesrnof citizens, one receiving relief andrnthe other paying for it. Those onrnrelief have littie incentive to earnrnincome. .. . Public anger is repeatedlyrnstirred by widespread corruptionrnand cheating.. .. The waste isrndistressing, but it is the least of thernevils of the paternalistic programsrnthat have grown to such massivernsize. Their major evil is their effectrnon the fabric of our societ}’. Theyrnweaken the family; reduce the incentivernto work, save, and innovate;rnreduce the accumulation ofrncapital; and limit our freedom.rnThese are the fundamental standardsrnby which they should bernjudged.rnDECEMBER 1998/5rnrnrn