[ProgSoc] Compulsory Student Unionism coming back!
Roland Turner
raz at raz.cx
Wed Nov 9 16:18:59 EST 2011
On 09/11/2011 11:29, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Oh, come on.
>
> On 9 November 2011 02:30, Roland Turner<raz at raz.cx> wrote:
>> We truly get the government we deserve. Fabulous.
> Next, you'll be complaining about compulsory medical cover (vis-a-via medicare).
>
> In each case you could argue you are paying for someone else's waste
> (partying for non-VSU, smoking for lung cancer people, etc.).
I'm willing to stipulate that "good" society-wide healthcare in affluent
societies remains an unsolved problem. All of the approaches that have
been attempted appear to generate appalling inefficiencies, harm and
injustices (you're paying for the consequences of other people's
smoking, etc.). This is not to say that Australia couldn't improve its
situation, but that is a separate and rather lengthy discussion.
The arguments for having socialised healthcare in the first place (a
material increase in human misery results from not funding the
healthcare needs of the poorest members of society) are not addressed by
compulsory student unionism.
> And isn't CTP insurance *really* a cover to subsidise public transport.
>
> I mean, the amount collected versus the amount paid out.
>
> The carried over surplus for insurance must eventually be being put to
> use by encouraging less traffic by funding public transport.
If only!
The arguments for having CTP in the first place (a material increase in
human misery - not to mention personal bankruptcy - for bystander
victims of accidents caused by uninsured drivers) are not addressed by
compulsory student unionism.
>> It's worth noting that the founding of ProgSoc was in part spurred by the
>> obvious injustice of compulsory unionism. We couldn't do anything about the
>> politics, but we could divert some of the funding from subsidising other
>> peoples' partying to something more worthwhile.
> One wonders if this is why private practises and hospitals also exist.
Private practices and hospitals [still] exist because the bureaucrats
haven't succeeded in seizing control of all of them yet. (Did you try to
go to a private medical practice while you lived in the UK?)
> If the injustice is so obvious in the case of compulsory unionism,
> then surely it would be as obvious in the cases I mentioned above, no?
You've provided an interesting survey of situations where a somewhat
tenable justification exists; the same is not true for compulsory
student unionism.
- Raz
More information about the Progsoc
mailing list