Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I hope you argue for the complete privatisation of the compulsory education sector on this basis Graeme. You did, I presume, get some private benefit from your primary and secondary education.
Yes. But why would I have to argue for complete privatisation because of it?
That argument is bunk. "There's a private benefit so you should pay something" is only ever used for tertiary education, not for any other sort of education, healthcare, welfare etc etc.
It's used for a bunch of other things. Adult Community Education, and pre-school education for example. And roads.
-
Why no philosophical 'freedom and liberty' argument defending the right of every graduate not to be a member of their alma mater?
Because there isn't a bill on the order paper to debate the matter?
Membership of a university is less problematic, I think, because a particularly active choice has been made to become one, but I would have no problem with a law change to make (continued) membership optional.
Perhaps one 'next step' at a time?
-
Graeme, I was under the impression that membership is voluntary, unless the student body determines otherwise? It certainly is at U.Auckland, and I remember the great glee of the former Unitec Student Union events coordinator when they became the first tertiary institution in the country to vote for a return to compulsory membership back in '07.
It's more the other way 'round, but yes.
Students' Associations were all compulsory. In 1999 every tertiary institution was required to hold a referendum to decide between compulsory and voluntary membership. Since then, a petition signed by 10% of the student population requires an institution to hold another referendum (this can't happen more often than every second year).
Fortunately, I have platitudes for every situation, and can just copy this one from my post ... There is no democratic veto over fundamental human rights.
I'm quite a fan of that one =)
Drivers don't all get to band together to vote on whether membership of the AA should be compulsory, and nor should students.
As for student loans, they could be less extortionate by not existing at all. I find it utterly obscene that education is treated as a private good, not a public benefit.
I'd have said it was treated as both a private good and a public benefit - direct government funding of tertiary education is around twice that which is sought through fees. Are you arguing that there is no private benefit from a tertiary education?
-
student loans are already quite extortionate enough as it is...
Student loans are interest-free, un-secured, and paid back only with increasing income. I'm at somewhat of a loss to see how they could be any less extortionate.
Selling democracy as something that must cost is a good way to get people to switch off...
Yes. It's a problem. It's likely why nothing has been done to fix this in the past. I just don't think it's nearly enough.
-
The best analogy I could come up with is in there - a local residents' association. I just couldn't really work that into something so egregious that people would convert to the side of goodness and freedom.
I don't think the church one is too bad - particularly with a really active one like the Sallies, or the Presbyterians. For most people, it's the charity, and the role they play in communities that is the biggest part of their interaction - but there's another side (with which they may agree or disagree) that makes any sort of compulsion repugnant.
And even if you were strip students' associations to a core welfare-oriented service, I'd fall back on the argument that a poll tax of the welfare recipients probably isn't best way to cover it.
But my simple point is that it doesn't matter who they are or what they do, membership of anything remotely resembling a private organisation should be a matter of choice.
I suspect that came across ... although I do note that "the inexorable advance of human freedom" appears to be one of the foundational principles of the Bush Doctrine =)
-
I'm picking WFF as the ultimate target.
How would that even make sense? As Stephen notes, the analogy is imperfect as it is...
-
A good parody needs to be at least slightly plausible.
What do you mean slightly plausible? Didn't you read the wikipedia link and state department webpage =)
Yes, I'm trying to figure out which policy (Kiwisaver, perhaps?) is being parodied here.
Ahh. You don't know me well enough, is all. Perhaps I was a little early? Posted in a few weeks, I think it would have been somewhat more obvious. I just wanted my argument to lead, rather than follow, the debate to come.
You should all feel free to ignore this post and wait a few hours...
-
I don't remember the CG film Delgo from last year either ... but somebody does.
-
Tracy - the assumption is not something in blood = impairment.
It's: test for impairment; if the driver is impaired, test for drugs. A positive drugs test isn't enough.
-
Well, I waited 2 years to be able to drive with legal mind altering drugs, and a blood test for me shows up as alcohol reading because my drugs indicate the same blah blah blah that alcohol does but a professional understands this, and would cops?
Can I suggest going with a breath test =)