Thoughts on Freedom

If ya’ll were thinking about donating to a charity but don’t want to donate to Oxfam (because they’re anti-free trade) or Amnesty International (because they’re anti self-defence), then consider sending money to the School Choice Campaign in India instead. The campaign is run by the libertarian Centre for Civil Society (CCS) and gives poor kids a chance to escape from wretched government schools by offering them an education voucher redeemable at a school of their choice. The CCS doesn’t accept any government funds, which means it’s a genuine independent non-governmental organisation. And the President of the Centre, Parth Shah, is a supporter of free-markets and individual liberty from way back.

In related news:- My father, Sanjeev Sabhlok, has written a book where he talks about how a voucher program could work in India. He also draws on his economics and civil service background to suggest a range of other reforms that will help India’s 250 million people who live below the poverty line. The book, tentatively called Breaking Free of Nehru, is being published by Anthem Press later this year, and basically argues the case in favour of discarding India’s socialist past. I will post more info in a few months…

Today my son takes his Year 3 National literacy and numeracy tests. We were looking forward to seeing how his school stacked up against the competition to judge whether we are getting value for money. We should have known better.

November 2007; “A Rudd Labor government will publish the annual results of individual primary and secondary schools on national reading, writing and numeracy assessments for students in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9. Publication of school performance information will form an integral part of federal Labor’s plan to improve literacy and numeracy …”

Dec 3 2007; “We intend to raise standards by increasing school accountability”. Julia Gillard addresses the Australian Industry Group on December 3, 2007.

May 13 2008; Julia Gillard yesterday said the results of the first national literacy and numeracy tests, which start today, would be provided to parents and schools but not be available more widely.

Kevo brought this to my attention in the Discussion thread:

“KEVIN Rudd has pledged to keep a close eye on ABC Learning Centres to protect parents…..”

Bad luck for staff, shareholders, suppliers etc if the thing sinks (whatever the merits of Mr Groves kiddy empire).  And interesting prioritisation of his time by the PM.

The main game seems to remain the wildly endangered Australian species “Working Families”.

My mother maintains this is a euphemism for ‘working class’, but it seems a lot less inclusive to me..what if you aren’t working, not married and/or don’t have kids - Kevin and Julia don’t want to know you or what ?

And they have a poll you can participate in - “should childcare centres be run for profit ?”.  Do a have a click to see what folks in your local area think, but no prizes for guessing what the majority of participants want  (Freebies, freebies).

The way this trend is going I would like to suggest a simpler poll would be “What do Working Families actually believe they SHOULD pay for themselves ?

a) widescreen plasma TVs
b) holidays
c) movie tickets
d) all of the above, or
e) none - The Gov’mnt should pay for everything - they’ve got piles of money and we are just Working Families”

Or I am getting unduly cynical ??

I guess we shouldn’t be that surprised: they’ve already been talking about free childcare.  But the real depressing thing is the number of people who would applaud a government takeover.  After all, another Australian headline declares “Parents hope market won’t steal their centre“

Perhaps some of these shareholders were merely rent-seekers anyway, hoping to profit from further government childcare subsidies… Actually, that thought makes me feel a little better.

Because HECS effectively crowds out private initiative, we are never given the opportunity to see what innovative solutions the market offers to the problem* of university students having to pay hefty tuition fees. We can’t see these solutions until we trial a world with zero government involvement in all aspects of higher education. We can’t test this in Australia because our system of federalism has taken away power from the states, preventing localised policy experimentation.

Read more »

Apparently, the Aussie notion of a “fair go for all” means stealing my money to pay this clown to poison the minds of children:

I am a teacher. I teach at a secondary school in Sydney’s western suburbs

In fact, Mr. Bob Treasure is the head teacher of a faculty at the Erskine Park High School in Sydney. He’s also an enthusiastic supporter of totalitarianism:

What’s more, the considerably greater proportion of GDP expenditure on education in Cuba is spread evenly. It is designed to make opportunity the same for all. There is no palpable nor obscene inequality of private schools with abundant resources and public schools with few. The Cuban education system is one built upon social justice, and for that we say:

‘VIVA FIDEL!’

Sounds wonderful.

Blessed with Fidel’s munificent education system, the young Cuban Eloi can use their reading skills on books they’ll get jailed for reading, research things on the internet which they’re not permitted to access, learn about other countries they’re not allowed to travel to, learn about their government which they’re not allowed to oppose.

Well, at least if they get sick, they’ll be taken care of in Cuba’s glorious “free” healthcare system.

This is something of which the Cuban people are rightly proud, and it is something for which we say:

‘VIVA FIDEL!’

Well, I loved the cockroaches and blood on the floor. Very colourful. Viva Fidel!

Just the kinda guy we need teaching the young’ns.

I hope the bastard ends up under Val Prieto’s floorboards.

(Cross-posted to whackingday.com)

It seems that VSU is set to deliver in spades. The demise of NUS would be a truely magical day. As an organisation they have never been worthy of speaking on behalf of student interests and they have only prevaled due to compulsion and apathy. VSU stops apathy from empowering student unions which is exactly how it should be.

I fully expect student unions to survive, all be it in a new format. It will be interesting to watch that evolution.

John Howard’s contributions to the History Wars demonstrate that he does not understand the fundamental issues at stake in the debate. As such, the Prime Minister should refrain from taking part in the debate. The PM’s comments on the debate are not actually relevant; indeed they are attempts to use a deeply philosophical academic debate for political advancement.

Read more »

If there were a free market in higher education, students would probably deal directly with the universities. A university might offer them a loan, a bank might, or an individual who wants to invest in the student might. It seems to me that presently the government is acting as buyer on students’ behalf (sort of like how the government acts on behalf of health consumers via the pharmaceutical benefits scheme), and is setting prices to boot.

There’s a fantastic discussion going on at Andrew Leigh’s place on two main issues: (1) Is the HECS-HELP loan scheme good policy? (2) Does the government have any moral ground on which to stand in demanding we supplicate at its altar and compliantly hand over our money? Are students on solid moral ground in willfully considering not paying back their HECS debt (in protest against the above situation) in order that they might financially pressure the government to dismantle HECS?

I have previously commented on tax evasion and avoidance. The Left-wing view (whereby the government has a moral right to almost everything we own) is here, courtesy of Peter Singer.

Here’s some of that ‘free’ public education that so many people think is essential to our survival:

THREE NSW teachers a month are being sacked for gross incompetence and shocking crimes, including sexual assault, child pornography and supplying drugs.

http://tinyurl.com/y3jdnd

Here’s a horrible thought: just how awful a teacher do you need to be that even a public education system would regard you as “grossly incompetent”?

…and why haven’t hundreds of teachers been fired for being, you know, communists?

A week ago Jason Soon sparked a brief debate about school vouchers. The catalyst was the recently expressed views of ALP MP Craig Emerson regarding “differential vouchers” that discriminate on the basis of need.

I am skeptical of differential vouchers. If the size of the voucher is dependent on socio-economic position, then the subsidy will decrease as family income increases. This will increase the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) on low-income families and contribute to the “poverty trap” — where more work doesn’t lead to more income because of a combination of tax and lost subsidies/welfare. The consequence is more welfare dependency. Not good.

I am more positive about non-differential vouchers. There are certainly students who want to go to private schools but can’t afford it. And there are certainly students that currently go to public schools that private schools woud happily accept if they could pay. So introducing a voucher system (where the government offers a subsidy towards schooling — whether private or public) would allow more students to go to a better school and more students to go to a school they prefer.

One compliant leveled at a voucher system is that it would create education ghettos. To quote Steve Munn: “In the event that an even larger section of the middle class put their kids in private schools, only the poorest of the poor will be left in the public system.”

There are a number of problems with this. First, with vouchers it is not necessarily middle-class kids who will go to private schools. It is just as possible for poor kids to start going to private schools.

I have a number of friends who, though great sacrifice from their families, went to private schools. These poor families had to pay for their kids education twice — once through tax and once through fees. A voucher system would allow more poor families to take this option.

Indeed, it is more likely that the current system will promote school ghettos. Growing incomes allow more middle-class families to afford the double payment of sending their children to better private schools. Under the current system, it is the “poorest-of-the-poor” who are least able to afford a private school. Introducing a voucher system would give these families a better chance at finding a better school.

The second problem is that Munn ignores the link between competition and performance. Economists have significant experience is observing the effects that competition has on an industry. Those who previously had an advantage get more popular. Those who previously had a disadvantage fall into two groups — some get better due to competition and some go bust. Therefore, even those children who stay in public schools will receive a better education as competition forces their school to improve (yay) or close (and the students move to one of the better schools).

We live in one of the richest countries in all places and all times in the history of the world. It is normal for people in Australia to live in a free-standing house with hot and cold running water, three or more bedrooms, multiple bathrooms, surrounding yard and gardens, to have a car, to have television, video, stereo, radio, electric stove, kettle, microwave oven, telephones, mobile phones, x-box, bicycles, game-boys, to have as much meat, vegetables, bread, lollies, and chocolate biscuits as they would like (and more than is good for them), to eat from restaurants and take-aways. Cinemas, theatre, and all sorts of amusements and entertainments are common. Take a look as you drive around at the houses, renovations, factories, the cars, how new they are, the caravans, horse-floats, yachts, boats, surfboards, aromatherapy. All the toys. People who have travelled overseas are common. This wealth is not confined to some rich wicked class. It is normal. Read more »

Last year in Parliament, Labor Senator Penny Wong outlined the possible ramifications of the Government’s VSU legislation, which removes the dedicated funding stream previously provided to student organisations: “Health services, child care, sporting infrastructure, counselling, clubs and societies, orientation activities, financial services, housing services and legal support services are all hanging in the balance.”

Similar concerns are shared by some in the Nationals, the Democrats and the Greens. But are they right?

According to Jenny Macklin, Shadow Minister for Education, the “experience in Western Australia when they implemented the same legislation over there a few years ago” meant “many of the universities lost a wide range of different services…One of the university student associations actually went into liquidation.” Showing the important of perspective, the Liberals argue that the experience in Western Australia has actually shown that half-decent student organisations can attract financial members without compulsion. Read more »

Here’s a longish interview I did via email with Andrew Norton, who many readers may know from his writings at Catallaxy. Andrew is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and also works for the University of Melbourne. He wrote a paper on VSU that was published in August 2005.

You not only argue against the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Act 2005, but also against the status quo. Could you summarise your position?

The whole VSU debate assumed that we needed these separate amenities or student union fees to provide student services. But this was increasingly becoming untrue even without VSU. Historically, the separate amenities fee was necessary because universities were not allowed to charge for tuition. If they were, they could have just combined the two charges. After all, what’s the point in having two fees for one bundle of services, some of which were academic, and others non-academic? But from 1974 to 2004 universities could not charge Commonwealth-subsidised students for tuition – HECS went to the government, rather than universities. The amenities fee was the only way to fund student services. In 2005, HECS was replaced with a student contribution amount that went to universities. In principle, universities could then merge all their fees into one. None of them did, because the maximum student contribution amount was too low. If the student contribution amount had been higher, the VSU bill would have had little impact.

I prefer the merging of the two fees because separate amenities fee funds have been quarantined from proper internal university budget scrutiny. While teaching has been starved of resources, student unions have kept their inefficiencies. We would not get these muddled priorities if all parts of the university had to compete for the revenue raised from students. Read more »