What was the first American college to prohibit racial discrimination in its charter? What about gender-based discrimination? Many people might guess one of the schools known for a progressive worldview today, such as UC-Berkeley or one of the Ivy Leagues. The first such school, however, was Hillsdale College, a small liberal arts school in Michigan known today for its independence from government funding and rejection of government affirmative-action programs. It’s also my college. This is the story of a small frontier school and its stand on the principles of human dignity and the importance of education in a free society.

A handful of determined men, led by Ransom Dunn, rode thousands of miles on horseback, asking for contributions from farmers and settlers, in order to raise the funds necessary to found Hillsdale in the 1840s. From the beginning, the college expressly welcomed students of all races, even at a time when slavery still thrived in the South. The founders of the College focused on the study of the great books of the Western Tradition, stretching all the way back to Cicero, Aristotle, Plato and the Christian Bible. This tradition included the same works which guided the American Founding Fathers during the birth of our nation, from the ancients up through Locke, and Hobbes. By contrast, the College eschewed the novel, pseudoscientific ideas of men like John C. Calhoun, who declared slavery good and proper based on the “intellectual” differences between whites and blacks.

Over 400 of Hillsdale’s men fought for the Union in the Civil War, dedicated to the principle that “all men are created equal.” A monument on Hillsdale’s campus, positioned near a statue of Abraham Lincoln with bowed head, reminds students today of the price their predecessors paid in the defense of liberty and human dignity.

Fast forward to the days of the Civil Rights movement. In the face of mounting political pressure, the federal government began regulating both public and private colleges in order to promote minority achievement. While Hillsdale had never discriminated based on race and boasted a far more principled track record than the federal government on the issue, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare insisted that the college begin measuring student admissions and achievement by race for purposes of affirmative action. If the college did not comply, the Department threatened that federal student loans (one of the few forms of taxpayer money then accepted at Hillsdale) would be withheld from Hillsdale students.

Following court battles, the College finally resolved, “Let the government keep its money. Let us keep our Independence.”

Today, the College takes no taxpayer funding of any form, choosing to match any government loan offers with privately donated money. Students still study and discuss the same great works which inspired the Founders of both the College and the nation. Hillsdale stands today as one of only two American colleges (the other being Grove City College in Pennsylvania) to refuse all federal money as a matter of principle. Even incredibly well-endowed Ivy League Schools often bend over backwards in order to maintain a flow of taxpayer money. Colleges exist to pursue knowledge and truth, and when that pursuit slackens in favor of currying political favor, the college has clearly gone off track. We need more strong colleges who will prioritize principles over government grants and step up to educate their students in the roots of American liberty.

In a recent commentary on Michigan Radio, Jack Lessenberry raises some important questions about the future of the Detroit Institute of Arts. He correctly makes a case for the importance of art to a community, but assumes that because of this importance, art must be publicly funded. Rather than adopting a millage to pay for the Institute, the city should look to private artists and patrons to carry on Detroit’s artistic heritage.

Lessenberry states that the cost of the museum, distributed via a property tax millage among the citizens of Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties, will only cost a tiny amount per citizen. He overlooks, however, the argument that such a museum should be able to survive on private donations and patron support alone. The small per-person cost of the Institute does not signify that the tax is needed or justified. Assuredly, if the museum is valuable to the community, people will be willing to donate a dollar a month (or more) to keep it going strong. No one needs to be forced to pay for something that they truly value – citizens who appreciate art will give of their own accord.

Privately supported art thrives in many communities.  Not far from Detroit, the Toledo Museum of Art receives only private funding.  This museum, founded in 1901, now houses over 30,000 works of art, ranging from ancient Egyptian to contemporary American.  Farther afield, many other American art museums and institutes are supported by private philanthropy without need for government assistance, including the Getty Museum in California. Established through a charitable trust, the Getty collection includes over 40,000 works from Ancient Greece and Italy alone.  These and other examples prove that an absence of public art subsidies need not cause an absence of art.

While some Detroit citizens will donate to the Art Institute, others will be free to choose different projects within the community to support, perhaps giving to churches, food pantries, or other organizations which also improve life for Detroit’s residents. Is the Institute so important that government must forcibly take money from citizens to keep it open, thereby limiting the amount those citizens have to give charitably and pay for their own needs?

The commentary also states that, “If you rent, voting for the millage costs you nothing.” This statement implies that renting residents can, essentially, get a free benefit. In fact, increased property taxes will reduce the profits of landlords, who may in turn pass the cost on to their tenants through increased rent. There is no such thing as a tax which costs a community nothing.

Detroit’s art is indeed a valuable piece of the city’s heritage and cultural contribution, but this does not mean that citizens must pay taxes for it. Rather, we should look to private generosity: individual citizens donating their own money will take care that the funds are put to good use for the community as a whole, not just for some.

J. R. R. Tolkien’s great epic, The Lord of the Rings, contains far more than a compelling and inspirational story. A holistic worldview, rooted in a deep understanding of human dignity, pervades the entire world of Middle-Earth. Every defender of liberty and foe of oppression today should take the time to read this book—it powerfully illustrates the importance of individual action within the great struggle between good and evil.

At the beginning of the work, Tolkien describes the Hobbits of the Shire. Not far different from the English country folk whom Tolkien loved, they are, for the most part, simple, honest people leading simple, honest lives. They have few dealings with the wider world, and most Men view them as unimportant, as Hobbits are “neither renowned as great warriors, nor counted among the very wise.”

This quiet lifestyle, however, faces a grave threat from the Dark Lord Sauron, described by Tolkien in another book, the Silmarillion, as a fallen angel seeking to cover all lands with the shadow of his tyranny. In the face of this danger, a young hobbit named Frodo Baggins, who desired no part in a clash of world powers, steps up and actually volunteers for a dangerous mission to Mordor, the land of the Dark Lord himself, in order to destroy an evil Ring which would provide Sauron sufficient power to destroy all opposition. Along the way, Frodo receives help from several unexpected allies, but most especially from his loyal friend, Sam Gamgee.  Together, Frodo and Sam travel a torturous, roundabout route to Mordor, dodging numerous enemies. These two little Hobbits literally carry the fate of the world in their hands.

Tolkien powerfully illustrates the dignity and importance of human individuals through the humble heroism and Frodo and Sam. In the great struggle between good and evil, other characters, such as Aragorn, the rightful King, are called to take a visible stand and boldly defy the power of the Dark Lord. However, all their battle prowess and wise strategy against Sauron’s armies would have come to naught but for the willingness of two Hobbits to play their part. Even the smallest person has a role to play in the defense of beauty and freedom against an evil which seeks to destroy both.

So it is with us today. In modern America, few if any of us will be called upon to mount a white horse and lead a heroic charge in battle, but the principle of human dignity still applies. Our nation was founded upon it — the principle that all citizens, rather than a select few, have a role to play in their own government and in defense of their own liberty. We face an imperfect, divided world, and every citizen has a place in the struggle between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, virtuous freedom and dehumanizing tyranny. Each of us must stand up to defend the dignity of human beings if we desire to preserve the best of our heritage as Americans.

One of my recent projects here at the Mackinac Center involved typing every single line item of the Michigan Budget into a spreadsheet. If anyone remains unconvinced that our government is trying to tackle too much, I challenge them to duplicate this feat. Such an expansive government is not healthy for our state, and we must act to limit the reach of our government as an economic and moral imperative.

Our government has assumed increasing control over industries which used to be the domain of private enterprise, including education, agriculture, and health care. While the creators of such programs may mean well, they fail to see many drawbacks of using government in these areas. All government revenue is gathered using the threat of force- citizens may not simply choose not to pay their taxes. Therefore, government bureaucrats receive large amounts of money and little accountability to use it wisely, when compared with the private sector. If a private sector business uses money poorly or provides lousy service, it goes bankrupt. If a government department does the same, it will probably get as much or more money next year, and citizens will have no choice but to fund it — if they refuse to pay their taxes, the IRS will come knocking.

This year’s state budget weighs in at just under $49 billion dollars, $29.4 billion of which comes from the State of Michigan itself (the rest is Federal money). Now, who or what can actually keep track of that amount of money in detail? Even a truly altruistic and well-meaning bureaucrat would find it difficult to manage such sums efficiently. Elections provide some measure of accountability for government programs and taxes, but voters have proven unfortunately pliable when they are promised a slice of the government money pie. Couple this limited accountability with the lack of a profit motive, and it’s no surprise that public-sector spending has grown enormous, both in Michigan and the United States as a whole.

Even more importantly, government overspending carries moral as well as economic consequences. All government taxation is backed with the threat of force, and so government has a moral responsibility to its citizens to use its revenue for the common good. Taking away from citizens and then neglecting the common good amounts to little more than theft. Michigan’s legislators must ask themselves the hard question: is it really for the common good that we collect nearly $50 billion each year, redirecting that money towards projects that many citizens neither know about nor desire? Is that moral?

Of course, everyday citizens also have an important role to play. We must disown many of the favors which we seek from government. America’s founders designed a Republic: a nation in which each citizen, whether high or lowly, had a part to play for the defense of the common good.  This means recognizing the value and rights of one’s fellow men, and not using government power to make them pay for our privileges.  In modern America, thousands of groups operate in the latter way, all seeking special favors backed by government force, and blowing up the balloon of overspending.  We might desire government to provide us with some good, but we too must ask the hard question: would it be right and moral for government to take from other men and women in order to provide this for us?  If the answer is no, we must stop seeking that favor from government or else stop calling ourselves Americans.

In sum, both moral and economic arguments tell us to cut back on government size and spending.  This can be done, but it will require a great deal of individual responsibility from American citizens.  If we truly care about America’s continued freedom and prosperity, however, we will not tarry in restoring government to its proper, limited role.

As a Mackinac Center intern, I spend a fair amount of time collecting and organizing a lot of information. Charts, graphs and spreadsheets quickly fill with mountains of facts and statistics, ready to make a compelling case for smaller government. With all these figures, the statists don’t stand a chance. After all, hard data convinces citizens to change their opinions every day of the week, right?

Not even close.

Men and women are not computers, and they were never meant to be. We do not form opinions purely by cold, hard calculation and logic. We may be able to impress people with statistics, but any argument built upon numbers falls flat on its face when confronted with a humane and moral argument. This is not a criticism of human judgment, but a very important point in its favor: we really should value virtue and happiness more than the creation of material wealth. The idea of truly amoral citizens, completely ignoring human dignity, can and does fill Americans with horror. The critical question, then, is why many free-market advocates focus on materialist arguments, largely ignoring the moral ones.

This week, my fellow interns and I had the privilege of attending a speech given by Dr. Arthur Brooks, leader of the American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Brooks recently wrote The Road to Freedom, a book precisely focused on the moral arguments in favor of free enterprise. He confronted many moral criticisms of the free market movement head-on, affirming the fairness and humanity of capitalism. While many well-meaning liberals call for increased government to care for the poor, it is free enterprise, not government, which has dramatically raised living standards for all social classes in American. Capitalism stands upon the moral foundations of individual dignity and responsibility. We should be winning in the moral arena, not shying away from it!

Here lies the power of gifted leaders such as Arthur Brooks: they see the statistics, and then look beyond them to see the moral principles at play.  Russell Kirk put it well in the introduction to his work The Conservative Mind, affirming that political problems are fundamentally moral problems.

Of course, this does not mean that we should ignore facts; I will keep collecting data to use in Mackinac Center studies.  The data must be contained within a moral framework, however, for it to mean anything in the context of public policy.  Free enterprise will prosper again in America once we remember that economic freedom is not merely efficient, but good.

For more information on Dr. Brooks and his writings, visit http://arthurbrooks.aei.org/.

            Americans have increasingly come to view government as a vital protector against economic hardship. U.S. politicians, especially from 1900 on, have touted various interventionist economic programs as essential for America’s prosperity and security. Free-market economist Milton Friedman, on the other hand, understood that the best protection for American workers and consumers springs not from government intervention, but from economic freedom. It is this freedom to choose that guards us from exploitation and opens innumerable doors of opportunity.

            Friedman describes in his book Free to Choose how economic freedom aids consumers. In a competitive market, businesses have strong incentives to produce goods that consumers need and demand. The freedom of new entrepreneurs to grab a share of the population’s demands ensures that the vast majority of consumer needs are met. Also, price spikes are mitigated by the competition: even if all existing stores agree to keep prices artificially high through collusion, new vendors can enter the marketplace and thwart their efforts. Consumers cannot be forced to buy particular products, and thus will voluntarily contribute to the expansion of high-quality vendors while abandoning companies that provide poor service. According to Friedman, it is free competition, not government regulation, that protects consumers from exploitation and shortages of essential goods. 

            In his works, Friedman also points out the benefit workers gain from economic freedom: the crucial ability to earn wages that reflect the value of their skills. In an open market, companies will compete strategically for the most productive workers, driving wages up and rewarding good work. The free market also allows workers to become entrepreneurs and manage their own time and resources. Free markets ultimately protect workers from poor conditions by providing them with the freedom to choose a job according to their own desires and abilities. By contrast, a legally enforced monopoly system hurts workers, as they can only seek work from an employer with little incentive to offer competitive wages or pleasant working environments. 

            Similarly, Friedman argued that the freedom to choose among schools can help protect American children against a poor education. The more options parents have regarding schooling, the more schools will be held accountable for the teaching they provide. The worst situation for any student is to have only one compulsory schooling option, as is true for many inner-city children. Without any alternative, they have nowhere to turn if their assigned school fails to provide a good service. Friedman and his wife Rose were tireless advocates for increased school choice, knowing that increased freedom for families could provide an escape route for children in poor schools.

            Dr. Friedman deeply understood the importance of freedom in our society. America’s key to prosperity and long-term economic security is the liberty that enables her citizens to apply their skills and talents without arbitrary government interference. Anytime a citizen is left with only one vendor to buy from, one employer to work for or one school to attend, that citizen becomes vulnerable. Our greatest protection against both corporate and government exploitation lies in our freedom to choose.

Inspired by Milton and Rose Friedman’s Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.