I only have a rudimentary grasp of economics. I’ll try to make an economic argument.
First of all I’d like to point out that when fees were introduced they were only a £1,000 and were never meant to go higher but the government broke its promises.
I believed back then that free university education is a right not a privilege but I doubt you’ll accept this. Your reply demonstrated the economic argument is important when you said the higher education system must remain financially sustainable.
You also pointed out that graduates earn more. I feel this is important when you consider the role of tuition fees because the government gets more tax from higher earners. The investment you ask teenagers to sign up to is one which has benefits for future governments because of the higher taxes they’ll collect. Since graduates earn more the investment you’re asking teenagers to make is one which benefits the economy in the long run and therefore shouldn’t be forced on young adults now.
It seems logical to me to see that creating more graduates with a free university system will reap rewards in the future. I think it’s fair to say that jobs in professions or in profit making corporations have much higher salaries but these jobs require at least a Bachelors degree. Graduates in these sort of jobs will be paying the highest rate of tax and earn much more than the average therefore future governments will get more taxes. The graduates of the previous generation who benefitted from free higher education are making significant tax contributions now so this government is reaping rewards for the foresight of the previous generation.
Tuition fees put a barrier up which will stop some teenagers from getting degree even with the best repayment options the government provides. The size of the debt is very large for a teenager and some will simply not want to be so in debt. This group will be much less likely to earn well in the future so future governments will get less tax from them.
If you compare the tax the government collects I’m sure you’ll find it’s a smaller minority who pay the most tax and these people commonly will have at least an undergraduate degree. The economic conditions of the future are unknown but I believe a better educated populous and workforce will be a good solution for ensuring future governments get more tax revenue.
There are other arguments too but they’re based on things which matter to me rather than the government. A better educated workforce has other benefits but I believe the small cost of free higher education would be a worthy economic investment.
The non economic argument I’d make is about life itself . The NHS is a substantial economic burden but it guarantees more people will live longer. A long life is important but so is a full, equal and rich one. The NHS doesn’t address the issue of helping someone get the most from their life and let them make a rewarding contribution. I believe university education is an essential step at a critical time in an individual’s psychosocial development which helps them get more from life and give a greater contribution beyond the tax revenue they provide. It’s simply not enough to pay to provide citizens with a longer life.
My own experience of (free) university education was the most enriching part of my life which is a big reason why I want no barriers preventing anyone from growing in a university environment.
I’m not proposing this question to destigmatise paedophilia. The question is about your instinctive response against paedophilia and how it’s culturally defined.
In a society which believes human rights belong to children too they’d have to accept paedophilia. A society built on such strong beliefs about human rights would be far in advance of ours so wouldn’t pretend that certain unwanted types of sexuality are caused by mental illness. It would use the truth and the truth is that human variation is not a mental illness.
It would most likely deal with paedophilia in a different way. One way is to accept it is normal, which is an idea which is an affront to most readers sense of ethics. Another way would be to use virtual reality technology to perfectly simulate a paedophilies desired sexuality experiences thereby solving the problem of sexual exploitation of children and not enforcing the whole of the anti paedophilia stigma by creating a safe outlet for undesirable sexual desires.
The point is that cultural norms and values are what the fallacy of mental health enforces. These norms and values aren’t scientific but by pretending they’re caused by….
…you are utterly heartless. You are abominable cruel. When you die there’ll be a lot less evil on this planet.
I’m never alone without people because my other consciousnesses are there. It is hard at times of course but I couldn’t imagine living a life with just one consciousness in my mind.
Some people will think that I’m crazy because of the multiple consciousness existing in my stream of consciousness. But you know how I feel about that.
I’m We. You’re just “I”.
I can’t be bothered to explain this. It’s true.
I hate the politically correct movement because it cares less about truth than it does about shaping the truth. Yet today I join the dark side and weigh in on the mental health language debate.
There’s a lot of people who demand the use of the term mental health problems instead of mental illness. Mental illness is a stigmatised concept whereas the politically correct term mental health problems apparently is devoid of stigma.
Revising language to reduce prejudice is one of the aims of the PC movement. There is a campaign to change the term schizophrenia to reduce the stigma. I hate this type of thinking because it wastes time and effort on changing words to disfigure the truth. It’s more akin to propaganda than truth seeking.
For example the term Afro-Caribbean is the PC term for black people but it still is based on skin colour. African culture and Caribbean culture are different but by assuming they’re the same the use of PC language does nothing to evoke truth.
The PC movement has a lot of fans in mental health. But every PC variant of the term mental illness still calls the phenomena mental “health”. It is far from the truth. I’ve frequently used the term schizophrenic instead of saying schizophrenia and I regularly got lambasted in public forums such as Facebook. Yet it is essential to say schizophrenic because the term identifies human diversity and allows for the interpretation that it is natural. Homosexuality was a disease and was thought to be totally unnatural. It needed to be treated to force homosexuals to be heterosexual. But now it’s considered part of natural human psychodiversty the individual can take pride in being a homosexual and never need they fear that they should be normalised by treatment to make them heterosexual. The use of the term schizophrenic is an attempt to convey integrity of being rather than defer to the idea that it’s caused by an illness which has to be treated to normalise the behaviour.
The critical element is the perception of natural human diversity applied to the phenomena called mental health problems, mental illness or mental disorders. It is not possible with anything which defers to the medicalisation. Mental health, illness and disorder are all words which have medicalisation in common.
Medicalisation doesn’t allow for integrity of being. When homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill they were considered abnormal and unnatural. They weren’t recognised as part of natural psychodiversty and they had no integrity of being until cultural norms changed.
Respecting human mental diversity changes the meaning of mental health but it does this to convey the highest truth. Mental health and psychiatry simply don’t respect psychodiversty. They are institutions which enforce the opposite of diversity. They try to make people more similar.
The phrase psychodiversty or mental diversity isn’t the most elegant of terms but it’s the best I can do to convey the truth through manipulating language. The concepts are the most important thing about my preferred vocabulary. And psychodiversty has nothing to do with health though it does encompass biological psychodiversty but sees differences instead of describing brain differences as deficits which is one of the big mistakes behind psychiatry.
If you would die for equality then, perhaps, I wouldn’t want to die.
If you would sacrifice for equality then you would have to help me die because you’d know how I feel and if you did then you’d want to die too.
I find myself incapable of justifying the objective of equality the way I write positively about suicide and assisted suicide. It’s not a logical proposition for me.
It is what my better parts dream of. It is an intuitive conclusion from my heart and soul, not my mind. The Equality First series of posts on this blog are about the application of logic and mathematics to one area of equality (employment equality) but I haven’t justified the goal with the same vigour and work as my writings on the right to die.
Equality is beautiful to me but the human race is so very ugly. This is me speaking from my heart and my soul. It is intuitive given the things I’ve experienced. After all, we’re all products of what’s been done to us.
I can’t justify equality but the best of me believes it’s the right thing. As I look around the street where I’m sat I don’t see equality. I see a wide range of inequality and that’s the truth of reality rather than the dreams from my heart and soul.
We are definitely not equal and that’s the logical truth. We have never been equal and we never will be.
I would rather die than exist in severe disability.