Schools and choosing cookies

The other day I saw a meme. I don't remember the exact wording, but the metaphor represented stuck in my mind. In essence, at a school PTA meeting (for example) a plate of cookies has been placed by the door. One parent takes one cookie, in case the cookies run out. Another parent takes three cookies, in case the cookies run out. The next day our local Costco imposed limits on certain items.

For a school, this has several interesting implications since all three are fundamentally political acts. The one-cookie parent is signalling that s/he will leave cookies so that others will be ok. The three-cookie parent is signalling that s/he will take more cookies to ensure that s/he will be ok. Costco is signalling that external regulation is required.

So where does the school fit? 

The one-cookie lesson is that we have the right to something but also the obligation to look after others. The three-cookie lesson is that we have the right to something and also to take something for later, perhaps a version of the Boy Scouts'"Be Prepared". It is significant that the parent did not take all the cookies and left the remainder for others.

What is missing here is what happens when there is only one cookie left, or the ratio of cookies to parents. Perhaps there was one cookie per person, or fewer, or perhaps there were three cookies per person, or more. Would either scenario change the underlying principles?

Costco says cookie-restraint or leaving something for someone else cannot be expected and/or relied upon so external controls are needed. There is an argument that Costco learned from experience and/or that they know they have supplies coming in a week so limiting people to one week's supply of cookies is reasonable since next week there will be a fresh batch.

I think the self-reliance argument of the three-cookier is fraught. The logical extension of this position becomes controlling and manipulating resources and controlling and manipulating supply. History has shown us that at a scale greater than a plate of cookies, this results in wars. I have read several commentaries that the next big global conflict will occur over the control of fresh water with one group fighting to gain it and another fighting to keep it.

Is there an answer?

Unfettered market forces do not help consumers or the market, they help only those who own the capital which supports the market. The same is true of uncontrolled monopolies.

Perhaps there is indeed a need for a neutral, disinterested outside body to dish out the cookies, like mothers at birthday parties. But then we have the questions of who should be on this body, who should appoint this body, how this body makes its decisions. And of course the "to each according to his/her needs" experiment shows us how quickly this can go pear-shaped.

For the school, the answer is once again rights and responsibilities. You have the right to one cookie, you have the responsibility to make sure others get their one cookie. You also have the right to take one cookie now, and then to come back later for another. Just like the mother at the birthday party told you. 

**Please leave your comments and queries below.**