The Nonsense of "Social Justice"
Why Australia Should Avoid the UN and International Treaties
A piece of blatant pleading of self-interest (at the expense of taxpayers) appeared in today's "Sydney Morning Herald" (see here). In an article entitled "University Fees are a Social Injustice", three academics complain that by charging students for access to tertiary education, Australia is in violation of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which apparently obliges Australia to make higher education "equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education."
The authors comment that "That means that everyone who is capable of completing higher education is entitled to receive it in an increasingly free system."
The unasked question, of course, is "At whose expense?" Ayn Rand spelt out very clearly why the idea of a "right" to such things as "free" education is nonsense. In her 1963 essay "Man's Rights" she comments:
"Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education etc, do not grow in nature. These are man-made values - goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labour.
Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."
Of course, if our learned academics wish to provide their dubious services free of charge, I guess that's another matter! Somehow, I don't think that's likely to happen.
I note that Australia apparently signed this treaty in 1976, presumably as part of the Whitlam madness. While we are on the topic of the UN, I think it's worth pointing out that as very few of the member governments have any legitimacy in Randian terms, the whole organization is a complete sham and Australia would be well off out of the whole thing.
As far as Rand was concerned, the right of "the self determination of nations" applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom. It certainly does not apply to dictatorships, which are no better than a criminal gang. The majority of the members of the UN are very definitely not free societies so the idea that a nation such as Australia should consider itself bound by treaties or conventions drawn up by such an organisation is absurd.
A piece of blatant pleading of self-interest (at the expense of taxpayers) appeared in today's "Sydney Morning Herald" (see here). In an article entitled "University Fees are a Social Injustice", three academics complain that by charging students for access to tertiary education, Australia is in violation of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which apparently obliges Australia to make higher education "equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education."
The authors comment that "That means that everyone who is capable of completing higher education is entitled to receive it in an increasingly free system."
The unasked question, of course, is "At whose expense?" Ayn Rand spelt out very clearly why the idea of a "right" to such things as "free" education is nonsense. In her 1963 essay "Man's Rights" she comments:
"Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education etc, do not grow in nature. These are man-made values - goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labour.
Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."
Of course, if our learned academics wish to provide their dubious services free of charge, I guess that's another matter! Somehow, I don't think that's likely to happen.
I note that Australia apparently signed this treaty in 1976, presumably as part of the Whitlam madness. While we are on the topic of the UN, I think it's worth pointing out that as very few of the member governments have any legitimacy in Randian terms, the whole organization is a complete sham and Australia would be well off out of the whole thing.
As far as Rand was concerned, the right of "the self determination of nations" applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom. It certainly does not apply to dictatorships, which are no better than a criminal gang. The majority of the members of the UN are very definitely not free societies so the idea that a nation such as Australia should consider itself bound by treaties or conventions drawn up by such an organisation is absurd.
posted by Kevin Francis at
7:34 pm
