|
It is one thing to express an opinion in a peaceful manner, and a completely different thing to threaten and physically attack people. Intellectual battles are fought by persuasion, not physical force. Disagreeing with a government action that does not threaten you physically is not a justification for hurting people and destroying their property. The above is the main premise in this discussion. Next comes the entitlement argument. The UK government is not introducing a new policy, rather it is scaling back on an old one, restricting its involvement in education. It is sensible to bring back more freedom in education, where prices, just like in every other market within a free uncontrolled economy, should reflect fundamental value. Obviously, the government has to be careful not to withdraw its support too quickly. After all, its involvement has distorted incentives in education to such an extent that withdrawing substantial funds too fast can cause a major economic upheaval. From what I know about the issue, this is not the case. I hope this is a gradual change in the right direction. The best the students can do is re-evaluate their moral and philosophical stance on the issue and if they still believe that someone else should pay for their education, rather than their parents or themselves, they should try to persuade the government by peaceful means. But obviously, I question the "ethics" of forcibly taking away someone else's income to provide for cheap education. Some student leaders in the UK claim that it is only fair that the super-rich pay for their (the students') education. It is ok, if such rich people want to donate to universities and sponsor students voluntarily, but it is unethical to force them to pay (as some students want, although the majority are indifferent about the outside source, as long as the money is provided). To me, a person who advocates the violation of someone else's rights cannot claim that he/she is protecting his/her own "rights" from a moral standpoint. |