Student Riots in Britain: Very Disturbing
By Randall Holcombe • Monday December 13, 2010 9:12 AM PDT • 8 Comments
You probably have seen stories like this about student riots in Britain last week protesting tuition hikes. The hikes are fairly substantial, roughly tripling the tuition students will be asked to pay.
What I find unsettling about this is that people in what we think of as a very civilized country that recognizes individual rights would riot because they believe that they are entitled to have others pay for their education.
We are headed that way in the United States too. Indeed, we even use the word “entitlements” to describe many government redistribution payments. We have evolved to a point where these payments are no longer viewed as the generous contributions of those who have the ability to pay to those who are not as well-off, but rather as, well, entitlements. Those on the receiving end are entitled to make claims on the incomes of their fellow citizens.
The student riots are especially telling because, in general, college students come from higher-income families than the general population, so tuition subsidies have always, on average, been a subsidy from those who are less well-off to those who are financially better-off.
What do these riots say about the entitlement mentality of British society? Is Britain that much different from other Western democracies? The Orwellian way in which we have modified the language of government transfers is at least partly to blame. Let’s go back to referring to transfers as public charity, rather than calling them entitlements.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Charity, Education, England, Government subsidies, Politics, The State, Welfare 
As I have often commented to my long suffering wife: Americans are too lazy, ignorant and domesticated to rise up and protest the loss of their rights and freedoms, but wait until the various government checks stop coming and the welfare state implodes, then we’ll see people in the streets screaming, “where’s my check!”.
Paul | Dec 13, 2010 | Reply
When large numbers of people believe that they have a right to someone else’s property, then you know that our society no longer has respect for private property.
D. Saul Weiner | Dec 13, 2010 | Reply
This proves that the “education” these students are receiving—and want more of—is actually “miseducation.” A whole lotta Keynesian-Fabian bull.
Sauvik Chakraverti | Dec 13, 2010 | Reply
Nice, I left my thoughts on this story here:
http://bit.ly/hvCzjc
Speedmaster | Dec 14, 2010 | Reply
Wait a second here. Some British students are protesting because they are concerned their tuition fees are going to go by 3 times the current rate. The author of this article seems so smug about the entitlements these British students feel they are entitled to. Would you not be protesting if your taxes went up by 300%? Would you not be protesting if anything you purchased went up by 300% from one year to the next?
These students have a legitimate reason to protest. If education costs in any country were to triple in cost what do you think will happen to the amount of people who can no longer afford higher education? The whole point of college and university education systems is to provide society in general with trained professionals. If the general population suddenly can’t afford post secondary education how the hell are you going to keep your professional middle class jobs in tact. I guess you could always import those jobs from the middle class professional ranks of Mexico.
If you want a prosperous society you need a prosperous education system from kindergarten to university. Subsidize it any way you want but you still have to have it or society as we know it will decline. Who ever agreed with the author of this article needs their head pulled out of their ass.
Paul T | Dec 14, 2010 | Reply
The supreme law-of-the-land for our Republic is the US Constitution. It lays out the hierarchy of powers that exist for our Nation: God; the people; the governments. The governments of the people exist by limited “powers” delegated to them by the people through our Constitution.
Our governments have attempted to invert that pyramid of “powers” so that they are at the top (and thus the masters) and the people are at the bottom (and thus their slaves) ... God is NOT to be found in their pyramid. It is time to remind those who would govern that they are NOT the masters but the servants of the people, that it is the people who are their masters.
Our language has been used to confuse the people as to what is a “right”. The Constitution defines a “right” as that bestowed upon man by God. A “right” is that which no man can bestow or restrain except by the exercise of the brute force of “power”. A “right” cannot be legislated nor can a “right” be taken away by legislation; Only God has that “power”.
What many people confuse with a “right” is actually a “privilege”. A “privilege” is not bestowed by God but by man. As such, no one has any innate “privilege” (“privileges” come from man not from God) whereas every man has innate “rights” (“rights” come from God, not man).
The Bill-of-Rights was NOT intended to be definitive of our “rights” and “powers” but to reduce the controversy and the abuse that our founders felt would surely follow due to failings of man. The Preamble to the BoR also makes it clear that the Amendment process was not intended to “change” the Constitution itself but to clarify or correct minor errors; thus 14A, 16A, and 17A are clearly UNLAWFUL.
“Rights” are NOT required to be enumerated by our Constitution (9A) but some ARE enumerated (2A) to reduce controversy and the abuse that our founders felt would surely follow due to failings of man.
Likewise, the relationship of “powers” were specified to reduce controversy and the abuse that our founders felt would surely follow due to failings of man (10A).
“Privileges” can only be bestowed by man when they do NOT infringe upon the “rights” of others. Thus: health-care is a “privilege” that may be acquired but it is NOT a “right”.
The current wealth redistribution programs (medicare, medicaid, welfare, social-security, etc.) are possible only by infringing of the “rights” of the people. They are UNLAWFUL. The people may voluntarily (as individuals) choose to give support to those “privileges” but the people (as individuals) can NOT be LAWFULLY compelled to give support to those “privileges”! The same is true of regulations which infringe upon the “rights” of the people.
Where does this UNLAWFUL madness stop? It stops when enough of the people finally realize that their God given “rights” are being UNLAWFULLY denied them and their wealth is being STOLEN by thieves masquerading as the LAWFUL government; thieves who buy their “power” with the people’s wealth.
BigIron | Dec 14, 2010 | Reply
Randall, I think you make a bit of a jump when you talk about demonstrators/rioters believing that they are entitled to have someone else pay for their education.
I don’t think they think about it at all! (which is worse?)
If I was a student, I’d simply see that last year’s graduates paid GBP 5,000 and I’m going to have to pay GBP 15,000. That’s it. Very unfair (yep, it is unfair).
I doubt they think for a millisecond about who actually pays, since education has been subsidized for so long and they have had no reason to care about what the actual cost would be.
Those of us who DO think about the rightness and morality of non-voluntary-transfers-of-resources-aka-entitlements are a small minority.
One hopes that today’s economic times will lead to an increase in economic literacy and understanding of the role of the private sector in wealth creation and prosperity.
Paulanz | Dec 14, 2010 | Reply
Revolt’s do happen...
F the NWO.
Gaap | Dec 16, 2010 | Reply