What is Krugman driving at? It is obvious that it would all lead us straight down to the totalitarian cage. It is no coincidence that his article was named, ‘A Socialist Plot’. Could it have any other meaning than that we should be consistent in our principles all the way through the end and pave way for his future ‘socialist’ world? No, it can have no other meaning. He has made it all evident by taking it a bit further and calling for a consistency he had always lacked. Krugman, through his ‘brilliant’ article, proves that Mises was right when he said middle-of-the-road policy leads to Socialism.
Where would it all take us if we accept his principle-A totalitarian Socialist world? How would things go in his ideal world? Ludwig von Mises, in his classic Socialism, has shown us beyond doubt that economic calculation would be impossible and we would all but perish in such a world. Our time and resources are scarce, and at a particular moment, there are numerous possible ways in which both could be expended. In a Socialist Economy, which of course is a contradiction in terms, as money and profit motive will be done without, there would be no means to know whether resources are being wasted or not. The problem lies not where that it would be wasted, but that there would be no means to know it at all. The usual argument put forth is that there is an incentive problem, but it’s only part of a much larger issue. It could only lead to destruction, mass starvations and torture camps. It is this basic fact all utopians pretend to ignore. The confused masses pay heed to rotten dogs as they have only known that it had failed, but not the why of it. If all it would bring about is destruction and mass starvation, why should we be hell-bent on accepting it as the ‘ideal’? It is their starting premise that every child should be entitled to a free education, which is to be checked. You should reject it before they take it to its extremes. You have no other choice left at your disposal.
Welfare state, needless to mention, is not based on any solid principle. Krugman can have his fair claim to anything,but consistency in principles is not one among his virtues. Even street dogs know that socialism had failed BIG TIME, but we are not at loss for Intellectuals nurturing utopian dreams of the same persuasion. Noam Chomsky’s anarcho-communism too is a case in point. Why? They still are clueless on why it all went wrong. In the very least, they pretend that they have not the faintest idea. If they have the slightest belief in what they preach, they have nothing at all to prevent them from sharing their own wealth with the ‘have not’s. Why don’t they? Poverty is simply a tool for these shameless bloodsuckers in climbing up the collectivist ladder.

Why is it that every child is entitled to a free education? As far as I know, babies aren’t born automatically and parents have the sole responsibility to look after and educate their child. It’s what they should do in an ideal case, not just in a sense of duty, but in their own interest, as they value the child born out of their own effort. Surely, these men are of the ‘I fucked her, but I couldn’t have helped it’ school. Ask yourself- If a person knows Education is subsidized for his kids, food items are subsidized for him, is he going to work? Isn’t it harming the Economy? Why is it that the society should take upon it a responsibility that they lack? In the highly promiscuous society that we live in, the answer is obvious!

We should also look at it from the eyes of a child. It is certainly a sad situation if his parents are unwilling to educate him. Would a public funded education solve his problems? Parents are, in most cases, much capable in imparting education than public school teachers. Why should one take upon the task of raising a child if he had never taken the trouble to educate himself? A free, compulsory public funded education can only prevent him from being homeschooled or getting himself an education. In the first place, a lot many are forced to attend a public school only because their parents are being taxed to fund it. Contrary to the popular delusion, much of the tax burden is on the poor and the lower middle classes. In the second place, an overwhelming majority are poor only because the mixed economy has made them the way they are. All unemployment would be voluntary on a free market. It all leads us to this simple, but devastating question-Why should the welfare state principle be accepted at all?

Beware of the man who argues for “Free Quality Primary education” How could one expect the government to educate hundreds of millions of kids free of cost? There are only two possibilities-1) They are too unaware of the economic situation 2) They pretend to be unaware of it. Which rings true? “There is ‘Free Primary Education’. There is ‘Quality Primary Education’. There is no such thing as ‘Free Quality Primary Education’. There is no such thing as free lunch.” The harm these schools have done is incalculable. “If you are for subsidization of education, let me ask you one question - Would you recommend distributing rotten vegetable’s and torn clothes to the `poor because they can’t afford them? I am taking this supposedly extreme view, not because these problems shouldn’t be addressed, but because every piece of talent out there must get the ‘same shot at contributing’.

It might be argued the cost of education will go up, the poor may not be able to afford it & private schools lacking social commitment will mushroom. Well, hogwash! Recently a study was conducted by CCS among unrecognized private schools in the slums of Delhi with Fee averaged at 125 Rs (3$) per month. (Not all pay this fee. Some pay even less and many are teached free of cost). When classrooms were visited unannounced, teacher attendance in Private Unrecognized Schools was two times of that of Govt. Schools. When tested in academics, children in Private Unrecognized schools scored even up to more than three times of that of Government Schools. The scores were much higher in Recognized ones. Government Schools were ahead of them only in the aspect of playgrounds.7 principal findings by CCS were: Private unaided schools make up the majority of Schools in North Shahdara with more unrecognized than Government Schools.2) Higher Achievement in Private than in Government Schools.3) Private Unaided Schools cost significantly less than Government Schools in per pupil teacher costs.4) Teaching commitment higher in private unaided than Government Schools.5) The poorest children are given free or subsidized seats in private unaided schools.6) Pupils and teachers are more satisfied or at least as satisfied in private unaided schools than in Government Schools.7) Head teachers or School Managers more frequently observe classes in Private unaided Schools and are in more control.

Let any honest person look upon it and decide for himself.You are right where there can’t be an outright guarantee that it will work for every single one. One can’t expect parents who find it cost-effective to send their children to schools where mid day meals and public funded education are provided to have a miraculous transformation in their character and educate them at their own expense. Yet, it is far more workable than the utopian mixed economy. It is far more workable than public funded education which never delivers.Let us step into a new world - a level playing field where our fate is not determined by evil intentioned intellectuals, but by our own ability or inability. The welfare of the lowest strata of a society depends on innovations in technology, not on reservations or subsidies. The price of a typical book came down from a wage laborer’s 15 years wages to less than half a day’s wages in 600 years not by Government subsidies, but by efficient means of production. Invisible hand, though not omnipotent, is really powerful, powerful than the mixed economy, powerful than any other conceivable system. Hope one day we all will open our eyes and wake up to the truth!