Dishonesty in the University Funding Debate

So the debate over higher education funding rumbles on. Plenty of people are very unhappy about the idea that universities might charge higher fees to actually cover the cost of the tuition. Instead, these people argue, the government should increase its funding of universities leaving fees unchanged.

The whole debate is founded on something that those complaining will not tell you.

Consider. We live in a democracy meaning that, in theory, the government should only do what the majority want done. So those people arguing that the government should pay more to universities think that the majority of the country want to contribute towards the degrees of other people.

Now, supposing tuition fees go up. What stops those opposed to such an increase setting up a charity to collect the voluntary contributions from the majority of the country and paying the fees for the students? That's right, absolutely nothing.

I can only assume that they know what we all know which is that if the citizens of the country had a choice, not enough would willingly want to contribute enough money to subsidise the tuition fees. So they argue that the government should force those same citizens to hand over the cash. Nice people aren't they.

More on That Fire

By now everyone's probably familiar with the Obion County fire incident (if not see here). It has led to a debate about Libertarianism and how, supposedly, awful it is that the fire was not put out. Many have defended the position by pointing out how the insurance system works.

Yesterday I blogged on this point and a commenter called fraser pointed me in the direction of this post on Mises.org. That post argues that this was not the free market in operation because in the free market they would have put out the fire and sent the bill afterwards:

In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service.

Now, it is certainly true that I am not anywhere near as intelligent or learned as those guys but I think they're wrong here. There is a big difference between the services mentioned in their post and fire services, the difference being the cost. For some services it is entirely reasonable to pay after the fact but not for the fire service. It's just too expensive for most people.

The London Fire Brigade, for example, had an operating cost of £422.3 million in 2008/09. In that year they dealt with 138,385 incidents. Of those 29,215 were fires, 64,374 were false alarms and 44,352 were other non-fire related services. I assume that the cost of putting out a fire is much larger than the cost of dealing with a false alarm or freeing someone from a lift. So some quick calculations - if all services were charged the same the cost per incident would be about £3,000. But in reality putting out a fire would be much more, say at least £10,000.

How many people could afford to pay that after their house is damaged by a fire? Not many I suspect. So in reality, I think, a private fire service may well refuse to put out some fires on the basis that they cannot make any money doing so. Certainly there will be some fires that will not be put out.

What's more, this is a matter of historical fact. In the years when London did not have a State fire service but rather a series of privately provided ones, they did not always put out fires in those properties owned by people who did not have insurance with them.

We can believe that the market is better at providing services and defend it when that means that people who do not pay do not receive. We do not need to insist, though, that it is perfect and will never lead to results that leave some people worse off.

Fight for the System, Not the Results

Deborah Grayson guest writing at Left Foot Forward discusses the notion that the Suffragettes did not win themselves the vote through their campaign but rather it was economic forced. She isn't happy with that idea:

"In this second version of history, [it isn't?] people that change things, but blind economic forces."

I'm no economist but I'm pretty sure that economic forces don't exist independently of people. Aren't these "blind economic forces" the net result of people making choices?

This narrative has come to dominate ideas about social change, and is incredibly disempowering:
...
Until some impersonal force decides that your demand is ‘economic’ you might as well have stayed at home watching repeats of Top Gear on Dave. It’s a narrative that helps us deal with the liberal guilt about the privileges we enjoy, and justifies us giving up the fight for a more equal world. And it clearly works to the advantage of those who already hold power by dissuading people from taking any kind of action to challenge them.

Ms Grayson seems to think that the only thing one can fight for is a given result. Thus if you cannot force people to give you what you want you have nothing to campaign for. She's wrong, as any Libertarian can tell her. Fight for a better system Deborah!

Forgetting History

Dizzy has picked up on a post over at Liberal Conspiracy. The posts concern Obion County where residents pay an annual fee for fire-protection. One resident did not pay and when his house caught fire the fire fighters did not put it out.

Sunny Hundal says, sarcastically:

"this is what libertarian-land gets you" 

Dizzy points out the absurdity of Sunny's complaint, citing a comparison to asking Direct Line to replace your stolen car when you have no insurance with them.

But Sunny's rhetorical question backfires tremendously. It was not the UK Government that started proper fire brigades at all. It was insurance companies who would provide the cover to their customers but not to anyone else. So yes, Sunny, libertarian-land gets you fire brigades!

Libertarianism in High Places

Could it be that the Leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland, Annabel Goldie, is a Libertarian? Here's a report from the Scotsman on her speech to the Conservative Party Conference:

"We must break the statist stranglehold on who delivers public services. We need to ask the fundamental question about what needs to be provided and who is best-placed to deliver it. Government, central and local, doesn't always know best."

Does anyone have more information?