Despite my overwhelming support for the principle of Voluntary Student Membership (VSM), and my delight when Andrew Bates and co. won the vote that made Auckland Uni voluntary a few years ago, I haven’t yet written anything about Roger Douglas’s VSM Bill: i.e., his Private Member’s Bill, drawn last week, that would allow Voluntary Student Membership at all New Zealand’s tertiary institutions – upholding, says the Bill’s stated aim, “students’ right to freedom of association, by ensuring that no student is compelled to join a students’ association.”
I haven’t written about it for one simple reason – because I’m unsure if I support the Bill.
Why?
First off, it looks to me like utter hypocrisy for a politician to write a bill allowing students to resile voluntarily from joining and paying for their student union, while insisting loudly and volubly that you and I and every other taxpayer stumps up compulsorily for his foreign holidays. Sorry Roger, your credibility is about zero with me right now.
Second, while the bill allows a student to resile from joining the student union at their campus -- and thus from supporting the unsavoury political positions of student politicians intent on putting their professors’ nutty political ideas into immediate action –- and to resile as well from paying for the numerous follies and iniquities of their campus’s student union -- it doesn’t however mean that the student union itself is starved of cash. When Auckland went voluntary, the balance of the student union’s costs were (as far as I’m aware) largely paid for by the uni itself, which means students were simply paying indirectly.
And so, while their name wasn’t necessarily attached to the various calls to make the Auckland campus a sister campus to Pyongyang University, they were still helping to pay for Martin Bradbury to visit Pyongyang in tribute to his spiritual home.
And third, you know what: the issue of Voluntary Student Membership is just so damned basic, that it’s worth having that battle on campus once a year just to give students practice in arguing for freedom.
As I said a couple of years ago, the issue pits freedom, individualism and voluntarism on one side, against collectivism, compulsion and bossyboot busy-bodying on the other. On the one hand it gives training, intellectual ammunition and a platform for freedom lovers to argue the issue of our age: freedom. And on the other, it shows just how disinterested the collectivists are in freedom, and how excited they are at the chance to get their noses in a trough. Any trough.
It’s not whether you win or lose a VSM campaign that’s even most important: The real victory of a VSM campaign comes in the number of people each and every year that a VSM campaign permanently switches on to freedom -- everything else is gravy. If campuses are going to be a breeding ground for future politicians, which they are, then I’d far rather they be a breeding ground for young student politicians who understand freedom and know how to argue for it.
And as long as you’re arguing about freedom every year, then you’re not arguing about making your campus a sister campus to Pyongyang University, are you.
It would be an awful shame to take that all away, don’t you think?
35 comments:
Delighted to read you are not giving the Socialists in the ACT party any credit for anything.
Never, ever be fooled by these chaps, they may not be card carrying members of the Communist party....(but may as well be)
Disagree entirely ... unless you're being a dog in the manger, in which case you're being a damned good one.
So it's ok to not give credit where due?
It's ok to 'sacrifice' the students in order to have a platform to rail against?! (That the varsity finds another means of funding the Union is a separate matter).
Whatever happened to the notion of supporting anybody who acts (!) in support of freedom?
Odd sort of objectivist thinking from Objectivists, I would have thought ...
Oh Sue, gosh...if you start dishing out credit to the ACT party, well, before you know it they will start getting 'ideas'...
Much better to just dish out floggings! HAHAHAHAHA!!
It’s not whether you win or lose a VSM campaign that’s even most important: The real victory of a VSM campaign comes in the number of people each and every year that a VSM campaign permanently switches on to freedom -- everything else is gravy. If campuses are going to be a breeding ground for future politicians, which they are, then I’d far rather they be a breeding ground for young student politicians who understand freedom and know how to argue for it.
I'm not sure how many it's converting to freedom. We've had compulsion for years and this country is still full of socialists. Its not as if every other president of student unions is a right winger. The left completely dominates student politics. And as far as I can tell New Zealanders are close to famous for their apathy regarding freedom. In fact many seem to positively hate our liberties.
So I'm not sure I get the theory here.
It IS good fun kicking the shit out of Lefties every time they dare force a referendum on this issue at Auckland Uni... I will ALMOST be sorry to see it become unnecessary.
But I'd rather not have to fight the same battle over and over. If there were merit in doing so, we'd be having annual referenda on the pros and cons of slavery and giving women the vote... hmmmm.... :-P
"..we'd be having annual referenda on the pros and cons of slavery and giving women the vote... hmmmm...."
Now, there's an idea...
Annual referenda on those issues would be splendid... a good way to keep certain people in line :P
lol!
If the central government was to respect the freedom of students it would get out of the way and stop meddling in the affairs of students. It is an oxymoron to say that a bill that creates a new law creates more freedom.
If you don't want to join the student union, well don't go to the university or campaign in campus against it, simple as that, you don't need to go get nanny government to go make more regulation. Just because it has the keywords doesn't mean its good. This is statism not freedom.
VSM is good, and all student unions should be voluntary but it is not the affair of the government.
Student politics are and always have been a front for the Baader-Meinhof left (like Ulrike Bradford) and a training ground for Labour.
That in itself is enough reason not just to make them voluntary but to ban them outright. Labour is the ultimate enemy of freedom.
As for universities charging extra fees to cover the activities - nothing wrong with that as long as Labourites are let nowhere near anything.
Indeed best of all if Labourites and lefties simply are not allowed near universities as either staff or students.
This is not a reduction of their freedom - as lefties they deserve none in any case. It is simple self-protection.
But the best - arguably the only solution to that - after outlawing Labour & Unions & Student unions - is to privatise the universities. Then if they want to spend their income on a new gym or subsidized beer rather than teachers, it's up to them.
I'snt that rather socialist/authoritarian, wanting to force people to do something (join a student union) for "their own good" (so they are have an opportunity to learn to argue for freedom)?
You do have a point if the union is funded by the tax payer/university.
No. It is atrocious to leave this issue festering just to give students a platform for freedom - a platform that has proved to be woefully inadequate in recruiting libertarian minded students vs recruiting control freaks.
The ideal solution is privatising the universities, but that wont happen in the short term.
The second best is for this bill to go to select committee and for the issue to be thrashed out. While universities remain state owned, legislation can be amended to demand that university not cross subsidise student unions at all. The case can be made that disproportionate number of Labour candidates are student union lackeys.
The time to cauterise student unions is now, whilst Labour is in some disarray. If libertarians can't find platforms to argue, or better ways to engage students that maintain a fundamental denial of freedom, it's time to pack up and do something else.
The half arsed referendum based "voluntary membership" is worse than compulsory membership because it makes freedom subject to "the vote". It's time to send the bill onwards to be improved, and watch the filth in the other parties justify the status quo.
I feel it pertinent to point out some things:
1. Just because commies invariably get elected to student unions doesn't reflect on the other students. If anything it reflects well - nobody else cares enough to bother - they are too busy getting degrees so they can make money. My experience of student politics is that if you put up good mainstream candidates and run conservative campaigns you will beat the shit out of any crazy Leftie that dares stand against you. Because most students come from Tory families and don't like commies any more than their parents;
2. The Bill isn't "central government meddling" - that falls for the classic trap that just because the government is changing something it is inherently bad. Compulsion is a form of force, and therefore a legitimate thing, in libertarian terms, for government to legislate to stop. At the moment compulsion is a legally enshrined part of the University experience except where referenda have confirmed otherwise. That's the government meddling right there! We want to get rid of it. How is getting rid of government meddling more government meddling?
3. A University could, by themselves, still make Union membership compulsory, but they have to compete in the market, and why would any Uni be so dumbarse as to do it? It would drive students and income away.
4. Subjecting freedom to the vote falls for the classic problem of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Why should I have to convince a majority of people of something I should have by right as an individual? That majority don't own me and my body - I do. Whether they say yay or nay, they can bugger off either way.
5. Pessimists who complain that Unis fund Student Unions anyway are falling for that classic Leftist argument used to get people to vote for compulsion. It is true that Universities fund Student Unions - they do so on a contractual basis. That means any company or rival student organisation could steal the contract with the right tender bid. It's completely capitalist, and the only reason it looks otherwise is because nobody else bothers to seek the contracts. If enough people were pissed off about that, they should form a rival union or company and bid for the contracts themselves. I know this because I know as a former AUSA executive member we didn't just get that money by right - we had to show we could deliver the services to students adequately and hold to series of performance standards. It was way more accountable than a compulsory system where the only accountability was Graham Watson in the Quad with a microphone.
That in itself is enough reason not just to make them voluntary but to ban them outright. Labour is the ultimate enemy of freedom.
I hope you're either joking or trolling... Labour is the ultimate enemy of freedom, so your answer to them on this issue is to ban something?
This is an example of how hard it can be to concede freedom for me and for thee. If we want to promote freedom, we can't just ban things which aren't in line with our ideals.
PC, I disagree with your stance. Why let the situation fester any longer? Student union membership was compulsory when I started at uni 30 years ago (only seems like yesterday!). Not much has changed since then. As someone else said, the hard left dominate student politics and the rest are too busy working to spare the time to oppose them.
I would oppose banning student unions, and trade unions in general (libertarians, after all, advocate freedom of association), but I believe the universities should be cut off from the state tit any time soon.
What would stop someone setting up a competing student trade union to oppose the current monopoly, promising to refund the fees of those who don't want to belong?
Me being a dog in the manger, Sus? Whatever would have given you that idea. :-)
"The real victory of a VSM campaign comes in the number of people each and every year that a VSM campaign permanently switches on to freedom"
I.e., not many, if any.
VSM is more white and no new black, the end.
Don't deny me my sport, PC. It's almost as much fun as smacking yes-voters! :)
PC, for Galt's sake take a win and enjoy it on the odd occasion we get one.
PC,
First, Roger had a contract with his employer (Parliament) and while we might not like the government employing many people, I'm disappointed to see you, a normally very principled libertarian, suggesting that the government should legislate to break former MPs contracts.
The problem has been fixed for current MPs, and we just have to wait a few more years until their aren't any more old MPs still around to claim the old, ridiculous, benefits that they used to get.
Second, VSM...
Again, I'm very disappointed. You're clearly letting your current dislike of Roger, and your so called 'principled libertarianism' get in the way of fairly analyzing the situation.
You clearly haven't even bothered to read Roger's bill, because if you had you'd know that Roger's bill prevents the kind of back door funding through universities that we've seen in Auckland - just as was done in the Australian VSM bill too.
Finally, students associations didn't turn me into a libertarian, plenty of other things at university did. Students associations have just taken up hours of my time (and money) that could have been much better spent pushing for other libertarian ideas.
Shame.
Is this yet another example of PC not wanting Freedom, just so he has something to bitch about.
Are the libertarian party actually interested in achieving a "more free" nation, or would they prefer to live in a less free nation, just so they have something to wank on about and feel special?
whatever PC. Sir Roger is merely expressing that he has not unlawfully taken these trips, but rather that these are what he is entitled to.
If you had a job which offered free foreign holidays, would you turn them down?
LUKE H: The success of a VSM campaign requires freedom fighters on campus with fire in their bellies.
Perhaps the few successes show how few are that number, huh?
MIKE: "Is this yet another example of PC not wanting Freedom, just so he has something to bitch about."
No, it's a suggestion that students might value freedom more if they actually fight for it rather than have it given to them.
PETERMCC: Don't give us that contract bullshit. Your hero never had a contract with the taxpayers who are picking up his tab. That gangsters' agreement should be broken, and broken now.
** "Roger's bill prevents the kind of back door funding through universities that we've seen in Auckland..." I'm very pleased to hear it. Perhaps you could post the relevant clauses here to demonstrate.
ANDY: You're a disgrace. Read back what you wrote with "Helen Clark" as the subject instead of your hero.
I'd say the same thing about any MP. Sir Roger would be one of the only MPs in Parliament who would advocate for fewer perks for members, however he is acting as most of us would act in his situation.
Would you expect all "principled" members to perhaps hand back half of their pay packet to the state? No.
When you view long-standing members' perks such as free travel as merely a facet of their reimbursment from the State, then it is not the big problem that you are making out.
For all those (starting with Doug Graham) who claim they had an "employment contract with the taxpayer", I'd say let's see a copy of it. They can then show us the clause that guarantees them free travel et al as a reward for fucking our lives up.
It's not that they're so thick they think they had a contract, they're just liars, and they get away with it cos when they make stuff up, people keep believing it.
ANDY: And you wonder why ACT isn't taken seriously.
TWR: They're liars, you're right. It's their supporters who they think are thick.
Agree entirely with you PC. Roger is not morally entitled to take money from my wallet every week just because he signed a contract with a bunch of thieves to do it on his behalf. Is this what you advocate Peteremcc? Do you see why this is an example of contract which should not be honoured?
I also agree that while voluntary associations are preferred, they should not be done in a way that allows them to be funded through the back door (which is what - I understand - happens now. The effect being that funding for the associations comes from students/taxpayers). This is what happened with the TV license (tax). Ok, we got rid of that through a good fight. But we lost the battle since the government just funded it from the consolidated fund. The result was that NZ on Air continues using my money to fund programmes which I do not watch and promote views which I oppose. At least with the TV license I had the opportunity to make a statement and to use this as an opportunity to highlight the reasons for why it is immoral. Now I have no such opportunity - they just take my money without asking through general taxation.
Julian
what, by LibertariaNZ?
I'm probably just as libertarian as you, however I'm not a purist when it comes to making change at the legislative level... at least ACT gets stuff done - and I admit, they sure don't always get it right.
"...at least ACT gets stuff done..."
Oh yes? Why don't you list the stuff they've got done.
The top five achievements will do.
Andy Moore said
"I'd say the same thing about any MP. Sir Roger would be one of the only MPs in Parliament who would advocate for fewer perks for members, however he is acting as most of us would act in his situation."
And you are sadly right, this display of moral corruption is the way most would act. While there appear to be no principled people inside parliament, there are even fewer outside of it. And for the record, no - I would not say I am 'entitled' to take money from the wallets of others by force. It is sad to see you and Roger think this is ok.
Julian
"Perhaps you could post the relevant clauses here to demonstrate."
That would be this part:
“(2) No person, including any tertiary institution, may act in any way which conflicts with the sprit and intent of this section.”
To these ACT-oids talking about ACT achievements, I wish to draw their attention to the ACT election manifesto..
1. Tax - "Cut and flatten rates"
2. Red Tape - "get rid of nutty regulation"
3. Public Service - "get rid of departments we don't need"
4. Health - "create competitive market"
5. Government Asset Ownership - "Sell state businesses where private firms can better serve customers"
...can one of the ACT chappies please indicate any of these policies implemented or even on the agenda?
...perhaps give us the date and time Rodders and John last sat down over a cuppa and discussed wording of the relevant bills? (Monday? Tuesday this week?)
Please do not talk about ACT achievements... there are none, and never will be.
Hi Andy .. I take issue with the word "entitled" in reference to public money.
Sir Roger & co should know better. It's called leading by example, particularly in this economic climate.
That we're still forced to pay for the likes of that odious bastard Doug Graham makes my skin crawl.
Post a Comment