> I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be.

I would strongly recommend looking into John Taylor Gatto's "An Underground History of American Education", at least as a starting point. Indeed, that is where I learned that a literacy drop between WWI and WWII raised eyebrows, but when it came to the Vietnam era, the Army had to investigate "How can so many people fake illiteracy?" and found that the answer was "They aren't faking it."

> After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write.

Now it's your turn: I'd like to see your evidence for this.

> True, but worker widgets who can read.

That's assuming that everyone (including educators and politicians) think reading is important.

>> There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure"

> I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better.

Have you considered the possibility that what is happening in Texas is an attempt to recognize harmful regulations, and weed them out so that people can have more freedom to function?

>> The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed

> It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others.

I cannot help but worry that your observations are cherry-picked. There's plenty of regulatory fail to observe for the few who look to observe it.

> The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, [ed: I can't find that explanation] but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later.

> Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it.

I have both experienced and seen what health care in Great Britain is like, and based on the statistics I hav come across over time, to this day, to suggest Great Britain's health care is better than America's is a big stretch. Something similar can be said of Canadian health care (Pittsburg, PA, has more MRI machines than all of Canada!), and certainly, Cuba's awful health care system should be considered "socialized". To the degree that American health care is better than these systems, it's largely because of the private aspects of it -- and what's worse, to the degree that it's harmful, it is because of government regulations that kill competition. How is it that the law requires that I have the freedom to choose where I want my car repaired, but that I must find an "in-network" doctor? Why can I purchase auto insurance from any company in any State, but I must have insurance sold in my home State? How the heck are these specific kinds of restrictions supposed to make health care better?!?

Many of the concerns you gave about health care apply to the car repair market too -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of car repairs and maintenance. Why is it that mostly-privatized car repair is market-friendly, but health care is not?