Dec
22
“Education is one of men’s greatest achievements; it is the road to further achievement. Every man must be educated.”
Indeed, no doubts. All men must have access to education, IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Provision of education requires three resources, the human resource, the teachers, who are providers, and have spent considerable amount of time while developing and preparing for the job, 2) the material resources, the books, pens and pencils, the school-building etc. The third and most important part is the literature, which of course does not may or may not require direct investment.
As can be seen, all the three parts require investment, direct investment from a party, which is going to provide education. Therefore, there can be no right to education, for it requires somebody else to provide it. However, there is a different kind of right associated with education, the right to educate oneself with any method or material, without having to follow a pre-defined path.
When general public/government speak about education and its right, they stress up on the first kind of right, which is to educate the mass in a fixed, predefined path, without taking the child’s interest or talents or situation in to consideration. There is no aim to this education, other than this belief that learning writing or being able to do addition or subtraction help everybody.
Nevertheless, both these subjects are neither informative, nor a school topic. These are tools that most illiterate people learn, without ever going to school, if they are interested. Especially, arithmetic, as writing is not a part of village living until today.
Then, people may argue, being able to write and read enables one to express himself better, or to read about expressions of others in books. However, that can not be the criterion for a right. Then, dancing classes, drawing classes must be basic human rights too as they enable one express even better.
The Indian society or for that matter most society in the world wants to make the wealthy feel guilty for their wealth. The difference in earlier generation people were enormous as education was limited then, and the learned knew much more than the common people knew, and were able to fool people whenever they wanted. Perhaps, that made people to classify wealth as evil. On the other hand, it may “Sour grape” reaction too.
As has been written in a previous article here, complete education is a myth, and I am not going to stress up on that. Rather, my concern is to provide universal education, of course, to a certain level, so as to enable humanitarian expressions better, and the artistic expression in society more profound.
For that, the proper understanding of education is required, and even though it may appear as preaching, I cannot refrain from adding that the mass knows nothing about education. It is possible to find economics graduates in India who either does not bother about understanding Inflation, or can give an hour long lecture with quotes without any view-points what-so-ever. Moreover, we all have seen both kinds.
The education that we ignore is the education of the mind, the liberty that we suppress is the liberty of our mind. In short, we ignore our mind. In Holy books, the mind is almost portrayed as Evil, ever falling from standards, ever failing to remain pure. Does this not make one wonder, if it is right to name the mind evil, and let one become the servant of the almighty. What do we have, other than our mind?
The fact that we ignore is that, we can not teach our mind in schools, we can not teach it to be moral. We can not teach it to ignore interests and focus on things, which bore us to death. However, we can induce fear in it, so as it resorts to following the path prescribed, how dull or unforgiving it be.
The morality must arise within oneself. In addition, the purpose of education is not to induce it, but to build a ground for it. How? By providing all sorts of literature, all sorts of view-point. By encouraging debates, by letting it forms a view, and not imposing one on it. Moreover, as you might have felt, we have been doing quite the opposite to it. How many times your dad has asked you not to lie, and has slapped you for lying. You lie, I lie, and we all lie. The education is a failure, it is a fashion.
We discussed over the viability of educating all here also and the common problems on real ground about providing education for a child is not so easy.
We want this fashion to reach to everybody, to the poor, to the rich. Whatever they learn, we do not bother. However, if hundred percent of our kids are going schools, we would be able to boast. Boasting, in public or private is the one single most reason behind charity.
We are bigots. We are nationalists. When we are in power, we preach our ideology. In addition, with time, it has become redundant, and we do not care. We do not feel the need to change. We do not want to grow tall, but we all want to grow fat.
There is no right to education, there can never be any such right, rationally speaking. Nevertheless, there is right to educate oneself, which is often discouraged, by mass and individuals. We must fight for that right, and implementation of that education. Otherwise, we are rich kids or pseudo-intellects crying “This must happen” or “This is not right” without knowing what is right and what must happen.
P.S. Sometimes Arundhati Roy says the same thing that a free man would want to say. That does not mean they speak for the same cause. And the ability to find the root cause behind either’s opinion is education.”
No Responses to “Education, Is it a fundamental right?”
Leave a Reply
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pmIf you ask me, i would say, even the Bollywood movies have a great potential to “educate”, educating the mind.
But you see, one will have to pay for it too.
rinzu Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pmfree education is still a dream for india…
the corruption doesn’t let things happen…ther are many people who are waiting for their shar of the pie…
good informative post…though u can include delhi’s case here..
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pmfree education is still a dream for india…
And what is free education?
Like you teaching some children in a slum and devoting your life for it?
How will you earn a living then if you keep doing that?
Free education is not a dream, it is madness of some people like it is yours.
The proper way is comment only if you read the post. if you haven’t read the post, if you have not got what the author is trying to say nor you are interested in understanding what he is trying to say, then what is the need of commenting?
Free education is not a dream, it is madness.
Lol You cannot even dream for free food for all too. because for producing food too, someone has to work. And why will someone work if he won’t get any payback?
Similarly just like free food is not possible, free education IS ALSO NOT POSSIBLE.
A teacher needs money, who will give him that money and WHY? What part of your income you are willingly paying for educating poor children of your own city?
It is very easy to blame others (like officials and politicians) but the reality is, those are corrupts who dreams of free education/.
Because they want some people to work while they are not ready to give them money for their work.
Education is not free anywhere in the world and it can never be because even thinking of free education is corruption and exploitation.
Mujtaba Ariz Khan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 pmEducation should be treated as a basic amenity and the fear of failure should be taken away from the system. The motive of education should be to give a direction to one’s life and not to create unequality on the basis of interest in academics.
We in India are a still learning how to respect different quality and interests of a student……i wish when education comes freely to everybody then it should be such that creates a healthy atmosphere where we feel free to experiment with our lives.
your topic and the pic reminded of my school days in CMS Lucknow…our manager also was an advocate of bringing fundamental changes in quality of education.kudos to you for discussing such a topic.
Government should atleast take off the interest charged on the education loan that the students take from various banks….this should be the first attempt at introducing free education concept
Fisherman Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 pm@ Rinzu
Free education? Education can not be free, unless the providers are providing without charging for it.
Its not a dream in India, and must not be a dream of India. If somebody wants to invest in the sector, and not charge the user, then it is his/her choice. Such dreams must not be imposed on others, and should not be glorified more than other dreams, like making a lot of money in business.
Corruption is bound to be there in a sector like this, because if you are providing something for free, you are paying the producers peanuts, which would mean that they are not getting enough for their contribution, not enough to sustain a good life.
My objections are mostly adressed by the comment by unpretentious. I would just add this much, if it a personal venture, I have no objections whatsoever.
Lastly, who makes the pie? How do the other people have a share? Kindly explain
Fisherman Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pmMujtaba Ariz Khan
Yes, my friend, and we must be given monthly salary for being alive. We should just be left to experiment with our lives, like which tea tastes better, who is the best to sleep with. We may wage wars sometimes, just for fun.
We would be given free clothes, free food, free land, free house. So fascinating.
We all are equals, so, we must be given equal money. If I am single, and you have five members, than you must get five times the money I get. We will all be given a yellow dress on new year, and a red one in easter. Lets level everything.
Do you even read before you post?
Mujtaba Ariz Khan Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 amthanks for blatantly making fun of my comment. i was just putting up my point. I wanted to say that grading system should be used everywhere. students appear in all sort of funny subjects like biology , chemistry etc and fail .this hinders their growth. for ex , i wanted to pursue something else and i was given maths (just because i was scoring well) but my interest was not in that subject , now i am suffering. i only meant that things should not be made compulsory and this will encourage the students to get wisdom and they will be drawn more towards the books .
p.s – i know you are going to say something really very funny now but what can i do, i am not as knowledgeable as you people.I am still learning.
Fisherman Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 amMujtaba Ariz Khan Hey mate, the comment is something you have thrown in this place for judgment. So, it was judged, and it got is due. Anyways, did you only see your comment being outraged, or you saw something else there? Now, in this second comment, you make a good point. The student is the one who should choose what he needs to know. Then, there would a counsellor, who would advice him on the way forward, which are not binding of course. But, give me one reason why education must be free, why there should be no interest on education loans, then I shall discuss that with you. If you are eager to know why one asks for interest when he lends, then, there are articles here, in this very website. Do read them. Then, you said, education creates inequality. Well, NO. Inequality is the law of nature. Tendulkar is good at cricket, And Ravi Shankar at Sitar. Some are good at nothing, most are average at everything. But, between this average mass again, the ability of certain man to do certain tasks differ. Our objective is not to get rid of inequality by cutting everything above 1.5 mitre tall. Our is to ensure a society, where the whole population can have a quality life although their qualities vary. If your school has a rotation system in the cricket team, where every student from every class must play one inter-school match every season, tell me is that right? Some people are going to do better than us, every time they get a chance. Accepting their ability to be greater than us helps to make life less bitter. The direction should come from the student and not from the system. Lastly, I did not make fun of you. You have been straight-jacketed all your life, And you come out and comment. That is a good change. Just that, I want you to read the article properly once again. Is that making fun of you?
Mujtaba Khan Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pmThanks for clearing this out.Yes , you were right in your response.
My Views:
1. Consider, If I am a girl from a middle class family belonging to a general class and a mediocre student and my family can only afford the higher education( say MBA) for either me or my brother then i guess i would be the second priority. If I take an education loan then should the government and bank earn profit from me.There are so many other ways of earning profit. Interest on the education loan is the worst possible thing.
2. i wish and dream about a world where everybody has a wider perspective and there is less evil .education does that for you. but how many of us go to school for the fun of it.we appear in an exam for gaining marks and not to understand the subject.thats the negetivity of the examination system.i dont know how but things should change we should award thinkers who spend time making progress and go beyond the written word.
p.s ..i’ll go through ur site on 25th..tomorrow i have an automobile semester paper.i really like your topics and i came for the first time yesterday and now i plan to visit it often.keep it up.
Nabanshu Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pmSee….Lets look at it not from the perspective that education is just another industry. It should rather be regarded as something like basic health care, or infrastructure for transport that is well within the duties, and not any act of generosity on the part of the state to provide. yes, you might say, why should I pay for someone else’s upliftment? I personally think only arguments can be put forward in this regard, and with the pre-decideds hardly convinced. In the most practical terms, we can probably view it as a necessity of the system, or the state machinery to succeed. All spoken about the existing system being hardly effective in educating minds and all, I admit, are really true. But then, dont you need the basic knowledge about scripts not to be a nuisance to the society in this present day? We need masses with a minimum level of literacy (I dont say education) for them in situations that demands, say, a casual passerby to understand he needs to refrain from touching something with “DANGER! 1100 Volts written on it”, or probably, a driver in a city to understand form a roadside signboard that work is in progress in the road ahead which, consequently is prone to congestion, and taking that might only add to hassles of himself and others. Even then, I admit, education fails to qualify as a fundamental right of the individual, as Fisherman described, and and can only be termed as pre-requisite for safeguarding other people’s rights merely. But then, where is the difference if we leave aside the literary one?
I admit all the knowledge I would need to live in this world includes hardly includes any curricular, and, even in case I never went to school, I would be well off in the trivial situation I have cited.That probably holds for all who are going to see this post as well. But then, not all are blessed to be born in an environment like us, where, even before going to school, a child, speaking stricly from the literary point of view, knows probably much more than a fifty year old in a remote village. Its true, it does not equip himself better for life straightaway, but then, in some situations, the fifty year old would hardly be better. Lets face it, even if I say I dont give a damn to others needs of education, I would probably expect them to be literate at least, so that the machinery I am a part of, remains greased and runs without inviting chaos.
All said,then, do we just need altruists keeping this education ‘industry’ alive, with peanuts for pay and hardly any scope of self actualisation? Hell no, because nothing can succeed unless all the stakeholdrs benefit from it reasonably.
But then, how to do it? The concept of free education, or education as a right, has shown some results no doubt, but that remains only in figures. In proper, albeit harsh words, we have seen only a gross plunder of our taxpayer’s money. But then, is there any other way?
To end, a little paradox. If we ensure literacy to all, all are going to be more or less equipped to ‘educate’ their minds in their own way they choose to. In other words, we can ensure right to education just by imparting literacy, which is indispensible for the the society? Is the inadvertant result of the present system the one it might be looking for?
Renaissance_Man Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pmEducation is not a right. It is a privilege, especially in the third world. Seeking out for knowledge is our right, our wish; the means we use to gain it is a privilege.
renegade_division Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 4:08 amHere is the problem Nabanshu, you can never explain me the economic calculation part of the whole “free/complete education” concept. I mean at best you can say that economic calculation does not matter.
Problem is most people who take a stance for the education, “believe” that since education improved their life, enabled them to become prosperous therefore it will help everyone else. Sadly its a big myth among people.
The problem is, lets say all 100% of the kids are educated into some sort of college degree, who will become a businessman?
The question is not as simple as it sounds, the question is not who has the KNOWLEDGE of being a Businessman, the question is WHERE are you going to get the Capital to start a business??
More bigger problem is, to teach 100% of the kids you need so much money and revenue from where will that money come from?
If you are going to give 60% of your salary as Income Tax to teach 100% of the kids, are you really going to be buying iPhones, Laptops, Cars??
You will be barely surviving, since there are no business possible because anyone earning more than Rs 2 lakh per year pays a huge Income tax, he will not be able to invest in any business.
Because of that who will be actually earning more than Rs 2 lakh per year?
100% literacy is just a fetish of Indian people. Its a govt propaganda because of more people are educated it makes their job of ruling over the people easier.
renegade_division Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 4:10 am@Nabanshu said
I am sorry dude but all I can say is that it is a very little reward for paying such a HUGE price.
Nabanshu Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 10:16 am@ above
HUGE price? Yes, true indeed. But probably its a bit more than a little reward to the society, both from the human rights perspective and the a-bit-selfish commercial perspective. How? I will explain. I can site many, but hers only one.
Consider the customer relation system in place in Banks and FIs now. Can they overlook the prospective revenue from the huge population who needs literacy subsidized? Now, what literacy would ensure is smooth and cost effective implementation of their modus operandi, such as those pertaining to ATMs, internet banking and all such stuff. So, though they are ending up coughing up a lot of taxes, they are not denied all benefits from it. Same goes for all other technological marvels of today targetted at consumerism.
But such explanation of the necessity I think is vulgar. True, why should we subsidize somebody else’s well being? But then, essentiality of literacy should be seen as something analogous to the sewerage system, or a vaccination drive. Even if someone cant pay for it, its for others well being that he should have it.
We cant sleep safe in peace with a cholera outbreak in our vicinity, isnt it true from both from humanitarian perspective and the more practical one?
Lets regard it as a long term investment that is necessary for all, just alike we had small pox vaccination for all in the previous century, for only us to live in a better society in years to come.True, the present system has indeed turned out to be a mess, but then, to me, its a failure of only the system, and not the programme planned.
renegade_division Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm@Nabanshu
Dude you are barely even reading me. In fact you aren’t reading anyone on this site.
You are making a case on how everyone being educated is going to help us. But my point is not “NO, 50% of the people must remain illiterate”.
My point is on two grounds:
1) Natural Rights: On the basis of the Natural Rights of a man you cannot force one man to pay for another man, its just plain immoral. If my kid is not the kind of person who is good in Education, I would rather save money all over the years and put it all in opening him a grocery shop rather than paying to have other’s kids educated so that eventually they can become big tax payers of the country and then provide my academically useless son with “welfare”.
2) Utilitarian: On utilitarian grounds(utility based), the problem with the “complete education” fetish is that by destroying the Capital of the society into a useless(or less useful) endeavor such as complete education, you are creating educated citizens, but you are killing their jobs.
You are taking their jobs, and giving them education, how sensible is that?
My point was that 100% kids aren’t going to become the next Comp Programmer, or Lawyer or Doctor. All these are white collar jobs and all education does is to prepare you for a white collar job.
On the other hand, some 40-50% kids are destined to become blue collar workers(because we need someone to build our buildings, to dig our mines). I am not saying that “let poor kids dig mines”, but what I am saying is, in your attempts to give equal opportunity to everyone in becoming the next Bill Gates, you are 100% ensuring that they will NOT get a chance to become the next truck driver and make a living.
In simple words you are killing 10,000 truck driver jobs so that those 10,000 kids can have equal chance to become next Narayan Murthy.
That’s not so intelligent of an idea.
renegade_division Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm@Nabanshu
Actually not, its not in my best interest that I pay for my Chauffeur’s Bachelor’s degree/Diploma if I still need a Chauffeur and someone has to come work that job for me.
But one thing is for sure, if I pay for 10 such guys for their education, who could have been working as a Chauffeur for me, that job is definitely gone, I have no more money to pay for the Chauffeur, I am now comparatively poor and driving my own car, that job has been killed.
And before you reply anything, please understand what I am saying, I am getting a feeling that you don’t realize how different this argument is than the usual you hear from other people.
Nabanshu Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 4:00 pm@above
No mate, I am indeed reading you, and that does not mean I have to subscribe to your opinion. But probably a thing or two you missed.
I never advocated universal education. What I am saying is that we need a minimum level of literacy for all, even the ones who are going to do blue collar jobs in future. I am never advocating free education to all, let alone the university degrees, at least not here. There is indeed a difference between these two, education and a minimum level of literacy, and not that fine. May be a bachelor’s degree is not needed to qualify as your chauffer, but the skill required to calculate what 5 litres of gas costs would surely help, isnt it? And even if he doesnt work as your chauffer, he would indeed be better off in this society. Also, as I said earlier, suppose your chauffer doesn’t know how to read the newspaper, and misses the news of a big rally in a particular road, or like the previous example, fails to read a roadside sign saying that the road ahead would be congestion prone today, and suppose you indeed have an alternate, though not the usual route to reach your destination. So is it going to help you that you saved a few bukcs to have an illiterate chauffer on such days?
This example, as well as the ones I gave before, are indeed trivial ones, I admit, but then it is never going to need a lot of brainstorming to imagine such small situations in hundreds. Also, what I am saying is, somehow literacy needs to be ensured, and even better without subsidy. But that is indispensible in itself, isnt it?
I suppose this answers both of your posts.
Now a question, can we afford an higher education system with no exercise of regulation/control by state or some other body, or a system where no subsidy is given for education in some form? Is it not going to be that I would study mechanical engineering because I want to, and not because society needs it?
Also, are we going to get best men for every job in such a case? E.g. Suppose in in a society, we have a demand for 100 doctors per year. But it is seen that inspite of the infrastructure being in place, only 20 are going to afford it. Can such situations be dealt with without centralised regulation and subsidy?
The only point I want to make is, even if a particular programme we are saying is failing, for whatever reasons, we are probably not right to question the need of the intent altogether. Yes, corruption is indeed a problem, but that is a problem of the system, and not of the intent, or as I said, rather the need of it.
P.S. Please dont put the next post with a question- Do my housemaid need a college degree with @ Nabanshu at the top. I again stress, I am asking for universal primary literacy, and not higher education. I am saying, education is never a right of an individual, but universal literacy is indeed the prerequisite of a welfare society.
Fisherman Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm@nab
So, education for all at any level is beneficial for the society. Of course, with that line the write up starts. There are signs in road, not instructions, the driver would not be a qualified one if he could not read those. As you can see, you are speaking about a man, who is incompetent in his job. He will be a nuisance. Every man such as him are, everywhere. Again, there are other means of communication than newspaper. So, it is again, a forced example. Literacy sure increases efficacy. The question is is it productive increase? Does the investor get benefited by his investment, in short or long term? Moreover, those who are having no chance whatsoever of being benefited by it, should they also invest in it? Must they be compelled? If there were profit in it, everybody would have cued to invest. I am not saying there is not, but there is almost no scope of direct investment. About society needing Doctors, well, should society sacrifice some of its own for its necessity? If it does, which part it shall? Who will decide who is to be sacrificed? Why not I be sacrificed instead of you. About the small pox vaccination, it was a one off drive. You invest once, you are free forever. Hugely beneficial. But, education is not like that. Education to all does not translate in to job for all, and generation after generation the necessity to invest shall remain. If everyone was guaranteed a job after they pass out, then, it would have made sense to invest. Why is it being opposed? I think, that is clear from the renegade’s post. About mechanical engineer comment, I would say, would you be happy if you were made an investment banker, or a medical representative because society needs it. Would you be happy if you wanted to be a poet, and end up becoming a surgeon? It is better to have 10 eager doctors who love their profession, because their love for the profession would translate in to efficacy. Every man who wants to follow a dream must have the guts to take the risks associated. If he can not afford it, he can take loans. He will have to make the authority believe in him, so as to take the risk. He has to have that courage to invest up on himself. I pay the doctor every time I take his help. I do not want to invest on him, and buy him for lifetime because I may require his help. And a doctor is not fulfilling any social obligation by doing his duty. He is doing the same job as a MBA, or a policeman. Earning money to be alive. The last point, as you have agreed, education is not a fundamental right. For further discussion, on the necessity of complete education, there is an article here http://www.reasonforliberty.com/objectivism/education-for-all.html
Vaibhav Says:
December 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pmI would agree with a lot of Nabanshu’s arguments here. To oppose collectivism you are going to the complete extreme of individualism. I would rather like to have some amount of government intervention. Just the amount that most capitalist nations have with compulsary taxation. I am definitely against communism and people should be free to do what they want. People should be allowed to pursue rational self-interest. But then how can we say that an individual knows whats best for him as soon as he is born. A certain minumum amount of primary education is required. You would say that it will go waste if the person ends up with a blue-collar job, which in most cases the person does. You would also say that a person cannot be forced to education, it cannot guarantee jobs etc. etc. Primary education is not for jobs. Certainly the governement doesn’t expect those involved in blue-collar jobs to apply their primary education in these jobs. A person even after this primary education is free to do whatever he wants. What this primary education does is, it makes him better equiped to make decisions in his self-interest. How effective is the primary education in actually doing so is another question. The government on many occasions fails to do things it plans. But I would certainly not be against the idea.
About the argument, why would a person spend his hard-earned money to educate someone else. Basically you question the validity of comulsary taxation if I am not wrong and rather propose voluntary taxation. I would rather say that let me be able to do any kind of work, earn the way I want to earn (with no intervention from the government), do whatever I want to do with the money I earn AFTER TAX. We should think that if we earn Rs. 10 and pay Rs. 1 as tax, we have the rightful authority of only Rs. 9 and the Rs. 1 we gave as tax was not ours for individual consumption. There are many things that we can’t do as individuals but would love to have it, like better infrastructure. We are not solely responsible for the improvement in our standard of living. What is a rich man in a poor country, if he cannot enjoy his riches. I would rather have a government with minimal intervention like that in a capitalist nation, but who takes care that the world around me is a better place to live and the taxes are a way to ensure that. If we feel that the government is corrupt and not using the taxes well, we can dump them and I am a supporter of democracy (Though not Indian democracy!). Also I may agree that for the wishes of the majority, one cannot coerce the indivual minority, which is the essence of individualism. But to allow every individual his own way, one cannot neglect the majority as well! There has to be a balance. And the balance is achieved in many capitalist nations. You may not agree with some of my views. These views are not just related to this post but many of your posts where you substantiate your point of view with extreme individualism. Perhaps you may come at me and say like you do to other people who post comments that I haven’t read what you have to say. But every individual is entitled for his individual thoughts
GP Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pmJust like Maharashtra govt. made education free to girls upto 12th standard, I think they shud also
make it free to Boys too till 12th standard. But expecting higher-education i.e. 12+ to be free – I guess its really too much to expect from govt.( considering the economic feasibility)
2. You can’t expect private bodies to provide free education as they meant business and not charity ( with exceptions of few but their selection criterion for students is tough)
3. People hardly care about things which are freely available ( same applies to education as well) so if ur charging them, then they definitely willing to take it seriously( exceptions – very few kids from poor economic sections who really wanted to become future Dr. APJ kalam )
4. Quality is definitely compromised in free education ( be it any level primary/secondary/UG/PG level)
Fisherman Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amVaibhab
We do not oppose collectivism. We endorse extreem Individualism. If anything comes in the way, we try to rationally oppose it. Period.
Say, the money that is taxed is never yours. So, your salary now is 9 rs. But, then the company providing the employment is to provide 1 rupee to govt. for every 9 rupee it gives as salary. Lets say it was not company’s money either. It made one rupee less in every profit. That, is one rupee it asked as price was not its, but government’s. So, you are the consumer of the service the company provides. It means, when you buy anything, you pay one rupee to the government just to buy it. NOw, can you say it is not your money, or it never was your money.
If it is nobody’s money, then how come it is in circulation. What is government taxing? Who is government taxing?
Yes, you are entitled your thought, unless it involves taking a rupee of me everyday.
Fisherman Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:50 amGP
The word free is a hoax. Nothing is free, unless it is VOLUNTERILY given away.
Vaibhav Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pmWhat I was saying about considering taxes as not your money was just a way to look at it considering you don’t get to use it directly. If you expect people not to work for a rupee for the government or rather want it to be done voluntarily, then don’t expect the government to provide any infrastructure or facilities.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pmOhh dear, that the right way.
Government’s interventions actually hurts the progress a society of free individuals can achieve on voluntary premises because everybody wants progress.
Taxes and subsidies always fails because Government cannot calculate.
And hence government need to keep away from economic sectors completely. And that is what economic freedom is.
There is no difference whether it is British government or Indian government, if it is holding the infrastructure and basic economic setup, than it is against the freedom.
If there are no property rights for the Indians, Indians are slaves.
Before 1947 we were slaves of britishers, now we are slaves of the statist government set-up controlling everything which we produce create and develop. There’s actually no freedom.
Dsylexic Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:51 pmThose who want govt intervention have some sort of beneficial grandfather like ruler in mind when they think of the govt.They think that the nice govt knows how to spend the money it forcibly collects thru taxes .but reality is that the govt is always a power hungry beast.with benevolence showered upon the special interests that help keep it in power.
liberty is too advanced an idea for people used to a mai baap sarkar
Inefficiency of Indian Education System | Reason for Liberty Says:
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am[...] kids. In such scenario it seems like exceptionally people friendly policy to go about declaring education a fundamental right and spending billions on it. All short term goals work in incumbent governments favor, building [...]
xcity of night Says:
January 10th, 2009 at 5:02 amVaibhav Says:
January 10th, 2009 at 10:59 am@Dyslexic
Those who want govt intervention have some sort of beneficial grandfather like ruler in mind when they think of the govt.They think that the nice govt knows how to spend the money it forcibly collects thru taxes .but reality is that the govt is always a power hungry beast.with benevolence showered upon the special interests that help keep it in power.
liberty is too advanced an idea for people used to a mai baap sarkar
The concept of a nation without government might be too advanced for me. I simply cannot fathom an India functioning without a government. I only can imagine that it will become like Somalia. I would anyday prefer a government which might not be utilizing the taxes efficiently than no government.
Perhaps I presume, you don’t want a state of no government but you are against a statist government and want Laissez-faire Capitalism something on the lines of this
http://capitalism-vs-statism.blogspot.com/2008/10/8-title.html
The blog owner of Reason for Liberty has even contested the 3rd point. I am in support of a capitalist government but would add a few more points like taxation, the way most of the capitalist nations in the world work.
Perhaps your views about government are so elitist that no nation has been able to incorporate it. You might argue that the top people in the government may have vested interests, but unless there is a nation which successfully implements such an idea of Ayn Rand, it would sound good only in theories. Till then I would assume practically it would be a failure.
I certainly like and advocate a lot of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. But I don’t follow it blindly like a devout theist would follow Bible or Quran. There are many points that can be contested.
@xcity of night
People have the liberty whether they want to exercise their fundamental right or not.
If a kid doesn’t want primary education and wants to do something else, noone is stopping him. But there are many kids who want to have a primary education. The maid working in my house wants to send her kids to go to primary schools and so do the kids, but they can’t because of poverty. For them they have a right to attain primary education and the government must provide it from the tax-payers money, stealing money from our pockets!
xcity of night Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 8:29 pmWhether the maid’s kid get education or not, money will ever be stolen from the pockets of those who care for education. Govt. is the middleman which weilds the baton of policy-making, while you pay for everything dear to you. Why don’t you not pay your tax for a turn, and instead get those kids into a school, that way you’ll have done some direct charity, without your money having been lost.
And yes, if you’re under 14 and working, technically, the govt. stops you and puts you in a school. But when someone under 14manages work, he gets no reprieve, because, under law he doesn’t exist, what to talk of his rights, liberty or their violations.