If we had to choose between a politically imposed good and a politics in which individuals had the freedom to choose their good, wouldn’t the freedom to choose be much better, risky though it is? Isn’t the imposition of a good inherently violent? Yet this way of putting the matter misses the point. If politics has to do with the way we organize and arrange our lives in service to the good, the prior question is, what good are we already serving? We do not start in midair, so to speak; we are always already a part of some story or tradition that we did not explicitly choose. The great illusion of liberal democracy is that freedom to choose is absolute (as long as we don’t hurt anyone). Yet in our “culture of choice,” such politics is sustained by and underwrites a market economics approach to education, work, family, and so on—a fact we do not explicitly choose. As Stanley Hauerwas notes, such a polity in colleges and universities further inscribes students “into capitalist practices in which they are taught to think that choosing between ‘ideas’ is like choosing between a Sony and a Panasonic. It never occurs to them that the very idea they should ‘choose’ is imposed.” Now we can see clearly that pluralism is simply an illusion. The prior question to ask of any educational or political endeavor is, which good is it serving?