I don’t believe, I know it. Observing any society whatever the political and economic structure and you will observe political considerations running economics (cutting sales tax instead of income tax is a populist move by wrong economically) and you will observe the elite determine what benefits the masses. The political question is which elites and whose political considerations?

When health care policies are written by insurance and drug companies and not unions, poverty groups and health care professionals; the former elite has the politcal advantage over the latter group. Naivte and fantasy land is to think the present economic structure (whatever the commodity) is run by “natural” forces.

You believe that government can produce from nothing, as a god among men, services and products based on its moral assessment of the good of society.

Actually I’m quite realistic — I beleive in good fiscal management. When Tommy C Dounglas, Saskatchewan’s first socialist premier, was elected he stated his first aim was to eliminate the influence of bankers by eliminating the debt. Once debt was eliminated he then instituted medicare and other social benefits which were then copied by other provinces.

IF you look at the fiscal record of many neo-cons, they too seem to believe gov’t can produce from nothing as they give away money to contractors as if money grew on trees.

Report comment to moderator

HRW, I thought you were smarter than that. This is just economic and social ignorance on your part. Plus it’s simplistic, idealistic, and wrong.

You state that if something is beneficial to society, than it should be free. So, you believe politics should run economies. You believe that the elite few should be able to determine what provides for the well-being of the ignorant masses. You believe that there is such a thing as a “Free Lunch.” You believe that if something is good for society, then it is society’s right to have despite the fact that scarcity does exist. You believe that government can produce from nothing, as a god among men, services and products based on its moral assessment of the good of society.

You’re living in a fantasy.

Report comment to moderator

“neo-cons and their economic friends are reluctant to offer anything for free for fear that someone may overuse or hoard the free items.”

“There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch,” Robert Heinlein

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Where are foreigners, many from third world countries, getting all this money to go to college?

Report comment to moderator

An offer of free goods which can not be hoarded, taken or overused is not an offer which can be abused. If the good is beneficial to society it should then be offered. Free health care is a good which cannot be taken and hoarded nor can it be overused. A healthy person would not be using health care – a rational actor would only use health care when needed. I’m not lining up at the surgeon’s office to take my appendix out just because its a free offer.

Education is similar. A rational economic actor would not overstay his/her stay in college/university just because tuition is subsidized. By hoarding or overusing education, s/he would lose economic advancement opportunities which occur for his/her peers as they leave school at an “ordinary” time. The state benefits from an educated workforce with greater employment, innovation and an ability to use complex systems.

As for the argument that “bird” or “fluff” courses would disappear once students were forced to make rational decisions based on their own dollars, the author assumes students enter university for the sake of learning not entry to professional schools. Although some people learn for the sake of learning and will take difficult intellectually stimulating courses others need high marks for law school or med school and will thus take course such as Sex and Love 200 or Evil 201 (philosophy courses I didn’t take while studying Hegel, Marx, Hobbes, Rousseau etc)

Finally, the state has an interest in a healthy and educated citizenry. They also have an interest in maintaining the viability of such a system. “Gate keeping” is common practice in both education and health care. Spots in university and professional schools are limited according to both available funds and the level of need for a particular profession. To prevent the perennial student syndrome, some countries simply set limits or expectations. In the Netherlands you have 5 years to finish a 4 year programme; any longer and you pay full costs. In Poland male students failing their first year are conscripted into the army.

Report comment to moderator

Agreed, price isn’t or shouldn’t be the marker. The amount of useful knowledge imparted to the student and the practical value to society of that knowledge—per public dollar spent—should be the only consideration for government support of education in any form.

But if the Arcadias continue to get their way, the taxpayer will eventually fund the entire process, including all the worthless studies and those who create/encourage/facilitate/teach them while enjoying lifelong employment free from concern of ever losing a job. If a student is so enamored with this drivel of no value, let them pay the entire cost of the course, and the professor’s salary, at a college specializing in such education. If this education is so badly needed by society, surely there is enough support to enable such a school “full of it” to survive in the marketplace without government assistance.

If a “student” is incapable of an independent thought causing personal incitement—which, when indoctrinated by a college professor, is not independent nor spectacularly inciting, much to the chagrin of the professor—then that individual has little need of a college education and should consider a career of something other than thinking. Perhaps a hands-on job serving mankind in a more practical and needed manner would be more fulfilling to the individual. It would certainly be more useful to society. As stated above, not everyone is a cerebral athlete capable of playing varsity thus needing/benefitting from a college education—especially one consisting of mostly junk social science.

Report comment to moderator

For his diversity course, he chose “Business Behavior of the Pacific Rim Countries.” It was taught by a Chinese national who spent lots of time extolling the virtues of the socialist system. Of course, said professor is living in the United States and has brought his family and doesn’t seem to want to go back to China. Hmmm. My son had to work hard to get through the course, and at the end wished he had taken the course on minorities and health care – or something like that. He said that in order to get an A in that course, you just have to agree with the professor that only white males get the good things in life.

Report comment to moderator

This is all the more important with the decline of manufacturing. Twenty years ago, the tool die designer pulled down serious money, but in many places that industrial sector has shrunk significantly, taking opportunity with it.

But for our student — how does he or she know what society wants? The community helps (your mentorship of a high schooler can be critical here), so too does the prospective salary. And sometimes it is the school itself, with the odd transfixing, transforming course that opens a window to what one can be. Price is not the only marker, here.

Report comment to moderator