Thursday, July 16, 2009

Here's hoping for more cuts to public education

One of the good things about the California fiscal crisis is that the State is being forced to leave, or reduce its presence in, certain areas, thereby reducing spending and taxes and perhaps more importantly, making room for productive and efficient private parties to take their place. As an illustration of how the public sector thinks, consider this quote from the president of the University of California.
“It’s important not to take money from enterprises that are really entrepreneurial,” Mr. Yudof said, “and it wouldn’t help us with our deficit. Maybe this will encourage people to be entrepreneurial and go out and get those grants.” (emphasis added)
How many private educators do you think would characterize entrepreneurship this way and how much harm is done to students who are taught this type of “entrepreneurship”?

Every reduction in public education is a twofold benefit, it reduces the State’s ability to propagandize for whatever consensus views it happens to want to foist on its citizens, and it allows the private sector a better chance to bring proper education back. Let’s hope we see many more cuts...


Blogger Burgess Laughlin said...

Your post has helped me realize that under capitalism -- a political system devoted solely to protecting individual rights -- there wouldn't be a "public sector" and a "private sector." There would be only independent individuals who have an agent, government, protecting their rights from criminals and invaders.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous LH said...

I particularly like your identification of the dual benefit of reduced public education....and I believe that however bad the taxation to support public schools, it is nowhere, *nowhere* near as bad as the tainting of all those young minds with what passes for education in much of the public system.

7:30 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:12 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

I recall that Rand supported the use of government grants by entrepreneurs.

Her argument included the notion that refusing to use such grants gave the entrepreneur's competitors an unjustified economic advantage.

Though it is disgusting to use other people's money to further one's business, it is better that those opposed to such grants use them, whilst vocally rejecting the very principle (of government support) that they have chosen to use.

There is no contradiction in that, she points out. He must stand firmly in favor of independence, making it clear that the government money he's used is NOT being used to promote dependence on government. Of course the President of UofC is not making that point at all.

The entrpreneur's business existence has a greater chance of success by using the grant. But that also gives him a certain credence for intelligent decisions, particularly in his stance of rejecting state funding.

In contrast, the businessman who believes in government funding, as his Right, supports the principle of government handouts, and promotes the ghastly notion that business is dependent upon government handouts using taxpayers' money.

The latter is the worst possible scenario, because it suggests the use of taxpayer's money is necessary for business. Of course, from that, businessmen are expected to "give back" to society.

The former anti-handout position says, I must survive in a mixed economy, so I must use the most rational resources available, even if those are from taxpayers. It is the latter view that the President of UofC advocates.

7:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home