It is sad that a great number of people subconsciously think that drinking a beverage with a tiny ounce of poison will make no difference. It is obvious that even a little poison could kill the body. The same could be said of intangibles. They do not understand that holding dangerous beliefs will kill them. It is my mission in this blog to present the ideas of Liberty and hopefully to persuade them to make a complete about face.

I reproduce below my response to the question Are leftists evil? with some annotations.

I would have to say, YES, but I have to qualify this. The principles that these leftist hold dear are evil. They are dangerous, and if followed would lead society to crumble into chaos. These leftists are evils as far as they espouse these evil and dangerous philosophies.

However, they are not evil in the sense that they want people to suffer or that they want society to plunge into chaos. They are well-intentioned. But like I said when you asked if Obama is evil, good intentions do not matter if they lead to dire consequences.
Now, Ludwig von Mises has emphasized throughout his works the importance of ideas. If you hold even one small but insidious idea as your implicit assumption, that could lead to dangerous conclusions. Change your implicit assumptions, and you change your ideas. Change your ideas, and you change your conclusions. Change your conclusions, and you change your philosophy.

Look again at Froi’s controversial blog posts. There were a lot of UP students who commented there, leftists or not. I think a lot of their rants, context-dropping, and disagreements stem from many of their implicit assumptions. Is education a right? They assume so. Suppose that education is not a right, isn’t state funding of education instrumentally good, they counter? This rests on the assumption that education is a public good. I’ll do some research on this angle. Many economists, Austrian economists mainly, and some perhaps mainstream economists, do not recognize education as a public good. But do you see the point I’m making?

If their ideas are not challenged, they will continue to pursue actions that will be detrimental to you, to me, and to the rest of us.

Annotations

* Pending further research on the related topic of whether education is a public good or not, I direct my readers on the article titled Enterprising Education: Doing Away with the Public School System by Andrew Young and Walter Block. While the topic is primarily about public primary education, to my judgment, the arguments put forward are effectively extended and are applicable to all types of public schools including state universities and colleges.

*Ludwig von Mises indeed taught about the importance of ideas and proper thinking. To appreciate the greatness of his person, I recommend watching the documentary about his life titled Liberty and Economics. In particular, go to 32:00. M. Stanton Evans relates how Mises encouraged his students to be disciplined in their thinking. This is shared too by Hayek in his introduction to Mises’ Memoirs .

The bottom line is that everyone of us is involved in a great battle of ideas. If evil ideas prevail, it will be to our destruction. This point is captured well by what Mises wrote in Socialism:

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders, no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle.

*At the time I made the reply to my friend, I was thinking of Mises. After some time, I remembered getting influenced similarly by Ayn Rand, another great apologist for Capitalism. In fact, I acknowledge her as the first intellectual I discovered who defended Capitalism. I think all people who defend the free market should include her books in their reading list, whether or not he will accept all of her teachings.

The first book I have read on Ayn Rand and Objectivism is Philosophy: Who Needs It. On the intellectual battle, the two chapters “Philosophy: Who Needs It” and “Philosophical Detection” are particularly helpful. Notice to my astonishment, upon re-reading this book,  how my reply to my friend mirrored her thinking in this excerpt from “Philosophical Detection:”

Observe that the history of philosophy reproduces – in slow motion, on a macroscopic screen – the workings of ideas in an individual’s mind. A man who has accepted false premises is free to reject them, but until and unless he does, they do not lie still in his mind, they grow without his conscious participation and reach their ultimate logical conclusions. A similar process takes place in a culture: if the false premises of an influential philosopher are not challenged, generations of his followers  - acting as the culture’s subconscious – milk them down to their ultimate consequences.

Are Leftists Evil? is a post from: Elevic Pernis - The Road to Weirdom

Technorati Tags: austrian economics, Ayn Rand, importance of ideas, leftists are evil, Ludwig von Mises, Objectivism

As far as I can remember, people have taken for granted that education is right. I also used to believe in this, and it is unthinkable for anyone to believe otherwise. Occasionally, special television programs debate whether education is a right or a privilege. The consensus that is always reached is education is a right, but it is practically a privilege. If it is a currently privilege, then the government should do something to make it more accessible to as many people as possible. After all, an educated person has a higher chance of uplifting his life than an uneducated person.

But the question remains: Is education truly a right? My exposure to writers and thinkers who support a free-market system during these past two years has led me to consider and question on what the proper role of government is. In laissez-faire, it is not fit for government to provide social services such as education. If that is the case, then I conclude that education is not a right. My answer to the negative is the topic of this post, and this is how I will likely answer anyone who might ask me why.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, rights are “entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states,” to wit, Life, Liberty, and Property [aka the pursuit of Happiness]. Any concept claiming to be a right must be tested if it is compatible with the aforementioned fundamental rights. Can it be derived from these? If by considering it as a right, does it violate any or all of them? Only when it passes these should we consider something as a right.

Now, if we accept education as a right, the state must establish a public education system. The government does not get all the funding for this from a bank account of infinite deposits. A system of public education is only possible through taxation. Taxation is legalized theft, and it is the greatest violation of property rights. If the means for establishing public education is a denial of rights, then the concept of education as a right is a negation of real rights. Hence, education is not a right.

But isn’t the right to education enshrined in our 1987 Constitution? As a matter of fact, the United Nations recognizes it as such in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why question it? This necessitates that we distinguish between natural rights and legal rights. Natural rights are the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. They are universal and “not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.” (Wikipedia: s.v. “Natural and Legal Rights”)  Constitutions, legislations, and other legal documents do not institute them. These rights are there from the beginning, and such documents merely recognize their status as rights.

In contrast to natural rights, legal rights are those expressly granted by the State through appropriate legislation but do not necessarily follow from natural rights, e.g. the right to a speedy trial. These are “contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.” (Wikipedia: s.v. “Natural and Legal Rights”)  They are more appropriately called privileges.

Education is a legal right. However, considering that to properly consider it as a right means violation of fundamental rights, it should be rejected as a right. If the proper people will only be enlightened to the proper concept of rights, they should revise those pertinent legal documents and strip education as a legally recognized right. After all, no legal fiat could make education a true right.

If education is not a true right, why is this belief deeply ingrained in the consciousness of so many people? I shall include this in my study of the great ideas of Western Civilization. The first clue I got points to Plato’s The Republic. Charles Van Doren (2008) wrote “Plato held that education should be the leading concern of the state,” the ideal republic. This is a universal type of state education provided for all, whether you are male or female, slave or free, young or old. I consider it as clear as day that Plato’s ideas served as the inspiration for one of the action points of The Manifesto of the Communist Party – “Free education for all children in public schools.” (Marx and Engels, 1848) – the ideas of which drive the militant activism of our youth in the universities and colleges. It is clear to me that to fully understand the evolution of such collectivist ideas, I must begin from its inception, viz. Plato’s writings.

References

1.  Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Retrieved

3 Aug 2010 from http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

2.  Natural and legal rights. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 3 Aug 2010 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_rights

3.  Van Doren, Charles. (2008). The Joy of Reading: A Passionate Guide to 189 of the World’s Best Authors and Their Works. Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc.

4.  Wenar, Leif. [Ed.] (2007). “Rights.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 3

Aug 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights

On the Question of Whether Education is a Right or Not is a post from: Elevic Pernis - The Road to Weirdom

Technorati Tags: education is not a right, natural rights, plato, the republic

************************

Problematizing the Call for Greater State Subsidy in UP

October 5, 2009

If you are breathing in the halls of the University of the Philippines, especially in the Diliman Campus, it is inevitable that you will meet the activists calling for greater state subsidy of UP Education. The trend in this decade is a continuous cut in the budget for UP. If we factor inflation into the picture, indeed, there should be an increase in the nominal budget of UP. Maintaining the facilities of the University is getting more expensive each year.

While the school Administration has always expressed that it desires greater state subsidy, it cannot ignore the fact that to wait for the government to act is an act of futility while the facilities further deteriorate. This has led to the great Tuition and Other Fees Increase last 2007, which affected students admitted to the University from 2007 onwards. In addition, the University of the Philippines is trying to lure the private sector in joint ventures as part of its revenue generating scheme. Examples of which are the UP-Ayala Technohub and the currently being constructed Toyota Center.

The leftist elements have condemned these acts as “commercialization of education” and “state abandonment of education.” Other groups disagree, and I’m not going to argue here that it is false to think that UP education is being commercialize and that it is also untrue that the state has abandoned its subsidy for UP, for others have already argued much more clearly.

Bu so far, no one as far as I know has asked much [more] radical questions in defense of UP being much more autonomous in generating funds. Perhaps, there should be no state schools in the first place. Leftist groups represented in particular by STAND-UP [Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP, the most leftist of the three student parties in UP Diliman] have argued that since UP is a state university, it is a contradiction in terms to think that UP would imitate a private university’s strategy of raising funds. Well, that’s the most practical thing that UP could do for now, I dare say. It cannot wait for the government to act. But now, I also claim that UP SHOULD NOT wait for government subsidy. As a Libertarian, [it is my view that] it is not the proper role of government to involve itself in social services such as public education.

Perhaps, instead of calling for more greater state subsidy, which would mean more government spending of money robbed from the people through taxes, why not let the free market decide on how much the tuition of UP should be? Let it not be too high that no one would be willing to enroll, but let it not be too low than the unhampered market would dictate that the University could not meet the demand for incoming students.

Furthermore, perhaps there should not a single tuition fee per unit of instruction in the University. This ought to be based on the program being desired. Aside from limiting the number of enrollees in a particular course by means of IQ [i.e. UPCAT and other metrics for shiftees and transferees], limit the number of enrollees of a program by taking supply and demand as determinant of the tuition fee for that program. This way, resources are maximized.

As a corollary, this approach would entail those unpopular programs such as BA Anthropology, B Library and Information Sciences etc which have few students entering [to] charge lower tuition fees. This way, those who prioritize studying UP without regard for a specific program could be encouraged to get in (assuming qualifications such as intelligence are met).

Perhaps, this is my answer to the issue over the last three years of whether to phase out unpopular programs. Maybe, UP should. These are nonperforming assets. If UP were a private enterprise, it would avoid offering non-performing programs in order to maximize resources.

Maybe, UP should not position itself as a benevolent University of the People. Perhaps, it is not its role to provide quality education for all people in different demographics.

Perhaps, UP should not hold the monopoly on the intellectual capital of this country. This monopoly is expressed by the joke “There are only two universities in the Philippines, UP and the others.” Perhaps by allowing UP to become more expensive (if that is dictated by the market) [it] would force innovation in the Education sector. Why can’t other Universities be set up with quality instruction comparable or even better to UP education that would absorb other intelligent students? Why can’t there be other Universities where to be admitted is as stiff as UP so that one could also claim to be “matalino” and part of the creme of the crop?

Perhaps, these things could eventually come into fruition if we UP students stop demanding government subsidies and eventually let the University of the Philippines become private. Perhaps, by condemning the call for greater subsidy in UP, we will come to realize what the proper role of government is.

Critical Reflection on the Call for Greater State Subsidy in UP is a post from: Elevic Pernis - The Road to Weirdom

Technorati Tags: education is not a right, state subsidy, University of the Philippines

His blog post can be seen here: http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/stupidityup

I have written this entry originally as my critical reflection to the following claims by activists: As usual, they claimed that education is a right. That by having state colleges and universities utilize self-generating income schemes is state abandonment of education. It is step closer to privatization and other blah blahs.

At the back of my mind, I was thinking that the state isn’t really abandoning education. The state still administers those institutions. It’s just being practical. Besides, I viewed it as a sign of naiveté to force UP to use only funds from the government just because it is a state school.

Furthermore, thanks to my exposure to Austrian Economics which affirms my long-held belief in Capitalism, I began to doubt whether state schools should be there in the first place. Perhaps, they should be privatized. These thoughts considered, I began to question the idea of education as a right. It may be unpopular and even taboo in UP, but I know that I am right and will not waver in this belief.

What follows is the original post, followed by the comments in response to the post.

*********************************************

I Oppose the Call for Greater State Subsidy for UP and other SCUs

May 5, 2009

 While the call of leftist and activists in UP Diliman for greater state subsidy is appealing because it will result in lower tuition and greater access to Education, the long-term repercussions are overlooked and I have to oppose it.
          Even if corruption were eliminated and the budget re-aligned to prioritize education, it cannot be denied that state subsidy must be increased at an exponential rate to factor inflation and the growing need for education by a ballooning population.

          This begs the question of where the government could take the much needed funds. First, through taxation. Second, through borrowing. Third, a combination of these.

           Whichever option the government takes to fund an ever increasing subsidy, the result would be greater burden for the general public. Inflation, (which is the expansion of the money supply), is inevitable.

          Therefore, it is stupid and selfish to please and appease UP students as well as those from the public schools if the whole Filipino people will be greatly burdened.

          Ironically, the leftists groups are calling for the removal of the R-VAT and other excessive taxes but they themselves are the ones calling for increased government spending in social welfare services.

          No government however rich could afford a welfare state and the net result of such collectivist ideas is higher taxes. In other words, the things that the leftists and Marxists in UP are fighting for are flawed. It’s stupid, no matter how well-intentioned.

          The alternative solution I see is to reduce subsidies by encouraging even more the self-generation of income for good SCUs. Then, close those worthless SCUs since a school if it cannot provide quality education does not deserve to be opened in the first place. This will reduce government expenditures.

         Make the pre-college education 12 years instead of the current 10 and make sure such graduates could work already. I have observed that many of those taking college degrees are not really fit for the rigors of University work and that they should have taken technical courses.

         A person wanting to finish a degree just to get a job, and not for the real purpose which is the refinement of culture and thinking, he or she does not deserve to go to college.

         Having said that, a 12-year pre-college system will drastically reduce the demand for tertiary education, precisely because the need of skills training for the purposes of employment will have been taken care of.

         As a final note, it is clear that those demanding for such subsidies are living in a fantasy world. The state has no way of satisfying the needs and wants of everyone. As such, the responsibility of one’s economic FATE rests on the individual and not the collective.

************************************

Comments

1. by finalflash

quite idealistic too, but I have to agree: UP’s self-sufficient ways are inevitable.
Changing the education system into lower, middle, and higher schools is also a good way to produce skilled workers (since that’s what the world needs today).
In the economic sense, the leftists are quite fanatical. As far as the future of education is concerned, anything can happen. (Can’t help but reply…)

2. by me

Hello, thanks for replying. Let me inform you that the framework I am studying and using for advocating free-market capitalism and limited government is Austrian Economics, led by intellectual giants like Ludwig von Mises.

I am still studying their works and they are more relevant to what is happening in the United States. I am still in the beginning phase of learning their arguments, especially the Problem of Economic Calculation, but I chose to pick and write on those things that I understand.

The left has bombarded the average Isko with Marxist rhetoric and an equally radical but sensible voice must counter them.

3. by finalflash

yeah dude. I think the UP administration should be given a chance to make the students understand that some things must happen. Sometimes though, some students inside and outside UP label the word “liberal” as “leftist” (because the word “liberal” sounds “hip” or different from what is happening outside UP). It’s quite good that UP education is liberal but sometimes an ideal wants to dominate another and it doesn’t sound good. So a voice radical from the communist or Marxist view on economics is needed, I guess. (Can’t help but reply again)

On the Call for Greater State Subsidy in UP and Other State Colleges and Universities is a post from: Elevic Pernis - The Road to Weirdom

Technorati Tags: austrian economics, education is a right, education is not a right, Ludwig von Mises, state subsidy, University of the Philippines, up diliman

            Only a few people know that I suddenly left the restrictive walls of formal schooling this year. Some when they heard it were shocked; a few were supportive. That’s understandable, and if I have no good reason to do so, I would have felt ashamed. In reality, I should feel ashamed for having done exactly the opposite for so many years. I have vegetated for so many years in the State University, having forgotten the purpose and the motivation the got me into that institution in the first place. This uneasiness is insidious and has prevented me from being the happy person I wish to be. So I decided to follow my bliss. I have decided to spend a year off in order to determine what I really want to become, and work on it through reading of relevant books and by meeting key people to learn from and contribute in return. Every person must come to the point of deciding whether to come to terms with his true self, or whether to live inauthentic lives. I am glad I have chosen the former. The great Abraham Maslow had stated this clearly:

“One can choose to go back toward safety or forward toward growth. Growth must be chosen again and again; fear must be overcome again and again.”

           This blog shall be a repository of my thoughts and opinions. While I consider myself a lone traveller, I would be more than glad if all the lessons I get from this journey could help as many people as possible reading this blog.

The Hero’s Transformative Journey is a post from: Elevic Pernis - The Road to Weirdom

Technorati Tags: Elevic Pernis, hero, self-actualization, transformative journey