Let the Whole Woodstock of Hippies Disagree With Me!
What I really love about Dixie Chicks is their courage and determination despite the fact that they were banned by pro-Bush
administration radio companies and businesses in the United States. To further air their outrage against the US government’s war on Iraq, they composed and recorded their Grammy Award-winning song Not Ready to Make Nice. Personally I don’t fully agree with Dixie Chick’s criticism of the infamous US-Iraq. I believe the US hit the wrong target, as it should have invaded Iran, which is the main sponsor of transnational terrorism. But this is another story, which I already did.
I really like this part of the song:
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
Oh, yes… I’m not ready to make nice. Sorry, but I will never say “sorry” to those who hate my blog entitled To all UP Students: Education is NOT a Right! I stand by what I said and I’m so proud of it!
I was so amused by what a certain UP commenter had to say: “In the first place, you started the whole bashing. There would be no outrage if you hadn’t posted this nonsense. Sometimes, it pays to shut up.”
No, UP commenter, it doesn’t pay to shut up when it is clearly proven through the comment section of my most controversial blog, that the ongoing radicalization at UP is becoming the biggest threat to this country and to our lives and limbs. Some bitter, pathetic critics claimed I wrote my controversial blog because I didn’t pass the UPCAT. For posting it they say I’m an “elitist,” anti-poor, anti-student, and even anti-establishment. But I say it is these advocates of this monstrosity- “right to education”- who are not only anti-poor, but anti-reason as well. And it is those who advocate for people’s “right to everything” (e.i. education, health care, transportation, basic needs and services, etc.) who are making this country more and more impoverished. The very means by which they try to help the poor and the needy is evil and immoral. Yet they have the guts and the gal to call me an “elitist” and “anti-poor.” According to them, so long as everybody is benefited, the government has the right to steal and extort more and more money from the taxpayers. They say, “everybody pays taxes.” Where do think this mentality would lead this country to? This is why I stated the following:
I believe in freedom in education, not in right to education. We all have the freedom to enroll ourselves in our university or college of choice. Nobody is depriving you if you’d like to drop out of UP. That would be a great decision considering our budget deficit. That is your right, meaning you have a right to choose or not to choose. That is a right of action. Your professors won’t tell you this. But if you ask the government to provide you a higher education subsidy, the question is: where will the government get the money? You might say, “We just want a fair share!” But did you ever forget that we currently experience high budget deficit? Technically, we are in state of fiscal crisis, and I’m still waiting for the official pronouncement of some UP economists.
Now you want more! How amazing! And you’re taking on me because I’m an advocate of subsidy cut? Who will pay for your higher education subsidy? There are only four sources of wealth in this case: 1) taxation, 2) more foreign borrowing, 3) printing of money out of thin air, 4) donation. Who will be sacrificed in the name of your “bright future?” The new administration said it will not impose new or higher taxes. But… will it borrow money from foreign sources. This is what your dear president Gloria Arroyo, an economist from UP, did. She borrowed too much money from foreign sources, and as a result, we now have over P4 trillion debt and a higher budget deficit.
If you want more, there’s only one proper remedy. Ask your leftist alumni and representatives in Congress, leftist politicians, and their sympathizers to donate a portion of their “loot”, er earnings, to UP. This is the only proper way! Capisce?!
Yes, it is these advocates of anti-rights who will bring this country to disaster and dictatorship. There’s no doubt about that.
So let the whole world disagree with me! Let the whole population of hippies, young leftists, and mini-liberals at UP and all state colleges and universities disagree with me and troll and bombard my blogsite with their idiotic, stupid rants and nonsensical diatribes. Let this be my reply to those who try to intimidate me with their zero-arguments and moronic rants:
I have to post this thing because it is TRUE! UP and other public schools must be privatized! That education is not a right! Why do you resent truth? I have no regret posting all these blogs! I don’t care about your nonsensical bashing and stupid rants. They have no value at all because they’re all WRONG! A wrong premise- a wrong argument- an invalid concept- an evil idea- is VALUELESS! In fact, most comments are so painfully hilarious…
A self-claimed capitalist who clearly doesn’t know how economics works also had this to say about my blog: “The thing is, in an economic perspective, a competitive market has a limit, and that is where the government comes in. If education, health, and other current government services be laissez-faire, then the government is just a nuisance. Technically, you only need to fund some institution to protect the rights you defined, like the police or the military.”
Here’s my reply: “You don’t understand how economics works. The only limit of the market is individual rights and the right of the people to choose or not to choose. The government only comes in when there’s a violation of rights. Your very argument explains why we have too much market regulation and controls in this country, why businesses won’t grow, and why cronyism is rampant. If that’s the case- if education, health, and other current government services be laissez-faire- then the government is the most important entity in any society. There is only a need to take the government to its proper role, which is the protection of individual rights. All economic crises, poverty, and misery on earth were caused by governments. Now, the government is a BIG nuisance for being too intrusive. And this state intrusiveness is due to that kind of mentality you have.”
The same self-claimed capitalist commenter asserted that: “It’s as if you see a capitalist market to be perfect, but sadly its not. If it was perfect, then all the countries would be capitalists.”
Since I was so revolted by his crude way of thinking, I came up with the following reply:
Your epistemology and logic are so crude. The reason is because of the existence of evil ideas that poison people’s minds. It’s because the intellectuals are anti-capitalists and collectivists. It’s BECAUSE OF THE UNIVERSITIES THAT TEACH THE MORALITY OF SELF-SACRIFICE, ALTRUISM, AND COLLECTIVISM. That’s WHY I WROTE THIS BLOG! You clearly don’t know the role of ideas in shaping or misshaping a society. This debate IS A BATTLE OF IDEAS. What we’re talking about are IDEAS and CONCEPTS. And there’s one underlying element here: PHILOSOPHY! Nazi Germany was the by-product of the philosophy of a handful mystical thinkers like Hegel and Nietzsche. You should see the connection. Soviet Russia was the result of the idea or philosophy of Engels and Marx. The fight of free-market capitalism has just begun with its proponents, namely, Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and others. This is a battle of ideas. We cannot change people’s mentality overnight. EDUCATION IS AT STAKE HERE!
There’s this commenter codenamed OHMYGULAYKA who posted the following rant: “Ilang beses ba na sasabihin sayo na RIGHT nga ang edukasyon. RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! Kung buhay lang ang Philippine Constitution bingi ka na sa kakasigaw niya sayo.”
But the problem is this commenter didn’t really read my blogs or refused to understand my arguments therein. I have extensively and clearly stated why I disagree with the 1987 Constitution’s concept of “right to education HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. In this blog entitled Dealing With Mediocrity, I stated the following statement to clarify why I disagree with the Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for that matter:
It’s a pity that too many of them point to the 1987 Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when I attacked the “right to education.” The people who drafted the Constitution are morally guilty for bringing us the kind of extreme disaster that we now about to face. Many societies have failed in the past due to the collective ignorance of their leaders. What they fail to realize is that this “right to education” monstrosity was perfectly practiced by Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin. The “right to education” is being perfectly applied in all slave pens on earth like North Korea, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc. Not only did the murderous dictators guarantee universal right to education, but universal right to health care, food rations, and other basic commodities as well. Yes, this monstrosity- “the right to education”- has no place in a free society! It’s freedom in education which we need and should demand, not right to education.
Also, in this blog entitled Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex is an Evil Concept I stated the following:
The right to education legalizes government theft and extortion, because in the first place, such a “right” is not really a right all. The right to education is a perversion of the concept of rights. The proper questions that my critics should deal with are:
- What is the proper concept of rights?
- Is there a right to something when it constitutes the violation of the rights of others, directly or indirectly?
- Is a right grounded in reality or just a floating abstraction- or a conceptual pretzel that can be bent, distorted, or misshape according to the will of its beneficiary?
- Is a right positive or negative?
- Does it mean a right of action or a right of compulsion or coercion?
- Is it anchored on man’s individual rights- his rights to his life, liberty, property, and his pursuit of happiness?
But it seems that my most passionate, irrational critics choose to maintain their ignorant, stupid position on the matter. They believe that rights include the right of force and compulsion. They believe that they have the right to a portion of the earnings of others. What a very pathetic, hopeless mentality!
There’s also this commenter named Leo Posadas, a Magna Cum Laude from UP, according to a friend, who successfully dropped the context of my arguments and came up with nothing but merely gibberish. Click this LINK to see how he poorly argued his case. Let me just reproduce my blog conversation with this Leo Posadas.
Your context-dropping is simply hilarious yet you came up with nothing but pure gibberish.
LP: “Your definition of ‘right’ undermines the very foundation of how the human civilization was built.”
– Kindly expound on this statement, please?
LP: “Man’s right to ‘pursuit of happiness’ cannot be separated from another man’s ‘right to life’.”
– Who said so? I said the right to life is the basis, foundation of all other rights. I repeat: “The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.”
LP: “[t]he right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”
– Do not drop the context of what I wrote. Read the entire blog again and its appurtenances.
LP: “Taking the argument further, you should not question a mother’s abandonment of her baby because it is her own pursuit of happiness but then how about the baby’s right to life?”
– How is this statement related to my arguments against “the right to education.” A mother who abandoned her child must be held liable to the government whose role is to protect individual rights. A child has no ability to survive on its own. Your understanding of “the pursuit to happiness” is very sloppy, outlandish and painfully funny. The “pursuit to happiness” does not mean you have to disregard the rights of others. That is not the proper way how to live on earth.
LP: “Destruction of collectivity means destruction of families because family, in its most basic definition, is a collective of individuals.”
– This is simply a good example of a sentence that doesn’t make any sense at all. It is bereft of reason and of sound argument. Know the proper meaning of collectivism and individualism. Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. It regards man as an end in himself and not the means to the ends of others. Collectivism means the opposite. Collectivism regards man as the means to the ends of others. In this debate, collectivism regards the taxpayers as the means to helping those who can’t send their children to school. In collectivism, there are sacrifices. In individualism, there are only mutual consent and agreements between and among parties. Further, a family is a collection of individuals related to each other by blood or even affinity. A family has no rights because it is not a human being. A society has no rights because it is not a living being. Only a living human has rights, and that is the right to life, liberty, property, and his pursuit of happiness.
LP: “But this argument is being extremist and unrealistic.”
– Whose argument? Yours, definitely!
LP: “On being realistic. If for example, I produce soap, I am a CEO of a soap manufacturing company. I need people to buy my soap so I contract advertising agencies, I have my Marketing Department, I produce TV, radio, print ads. I create a need that is addressed to the general population – which will become my buyers. Ultimately, I care for what those people think. I care for their behavior because their behavior will dictate my pursuit of happiness. That means, I can’t exist as an individual. I need people to fund me my wealth, my gain.”
– This is very crude and funny! What do you mean you can’t exist as an individual. Do you mean to say your existence depends upon the approval, happiness, or agreement of others? That is Kantian at best. Perhaps you believe in the existence of a noumenal and phenomenal world. If that’s the mentality of a business person then he will surely not exist in the market. A businessman’s goal is to make profit. Business is about profit. Read Atlas Shrugged.
LP: “I produce soap. I need energy. I can generate my own (diesel) or use the existing circuit (coal). In a way, I take part in the reason for burning organics to produce energy.”
– How is this related to my argument? Individualism doesn’t mean man is an island. Individualism means other people must leave him alone and stop imposing responsibility on him. It means a trader relationship. A business person gives something for value for if he turns his business into a charity, then he wouldn’t last long. A business person has to hire the most competent and most efficient people he could find and pay them their appropriate salary. He doesn’t hire people base on their needs. He hires people according to their competence and ability.
LP: “I take part in producing more and more carbon dioxide and then in a way, I contribute to global warming.”
– Global warning is the most outrageous myth ever invented in history. This explains it. Your epistemology and metaphysics are purely crude and worrisome.
LP: “I need my company to grow (my pursuit of happiness) and so I produce and sell more soap and so I need more energy and so I need more coal burned. I am but a single soap manufacturer. There’s leather, clothes, electronics, cars, gadgets, entertainment, lots of industries who rely on consumerism for growth. Global warming cause the oceans to rise and the people of Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean to lose their home. And so, indirectly, I take part in the cause of having the people of Kiribati lose their right of life. My pursuit of happiness to their right of life.”
– Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about. A business person’s pursuit of happiness is not what you’re talking about. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
LP: “That was a funny argument.”
– Which one? Yours definitely because it appears you made your reply without reading the whole blog, which is a sign of dishonesty. If you read the whole blog and its appurtenances, you wouldn’t appear very crude, ignorant and funny.
LP: “A more direct example, consider me as a budding coal-fired power plant owner. I have this property near a residential area. When I burn coal, the residents get lung diseases. It is my property, it is my right what I want to do with my property. But my right to pursuit my happiness kills others’ right to life.”
– It is very clear that you have a very problematic, chronic understanding of rights. This is a good example of context dropping, which means you omit the important elements of what I said and then highlight what you think could suit your funny, outlandish argument. A person’s “pursuit of happiness” is not to kill others. THAT IS SELF-DESTRUCTION AT BEST.
I have explained very clearly and extensively the relation of the role of government to man’s rights. The role of the government is TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and man has the RIGHT TO HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND HIS PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If, based on your very funny example, your “coal-fired power plant” led to the destruction of lives, the government, being the protector of individual rights, must step in and make the owner of that plant pay for damages and/or be incarcerated. That is why every society’s court system must be strongly impartial! We must have objective, impartial courts!
– Upon seeing that you have a very problematic understanding of rights, I told my self this is not worth answering. But for the benefit of everybody, especially those who are willing to think, I had to answer it.
Here’s the most popular argument adduced by my UP supremacist commenters and trolls like OHMYGULAYKA, memew ako, proudtobeUP, pula, smile:), Miguel Garcia (perhaps a non-UP), and many others. “Hindi ka pumasa sa UPCAT!” Really?
I simply ignored this claim knowing that it offers no argument at all, as it is a good example of argument from intimidation. In reply to a commenter named Miguel Garcia who asked- “Just one question Froi, Im just curious so please answer with all honesty. Did you took the ACET or the UPCAT? Did you pass?”- I was forced to stoop down to the level of my UP supremacist commenters. And here’s what I said: “[T]he answer is NO, I never took the ACET or the UPCAT because, I repeat, “enrolling at UP (and Ateneo for that matter) never ever crossed my mind in the first place. ”
Before you speak of some nonsensical, highly outrageous claim, which is clearly a by-product of your mediocrity, please know that I consider “school” very insignificant. Like most of my American friends who believe that Harvard U is the greatest threat to America, I believe that most of our elite educational institutions are doing our country a great disservice. In fact, such an invalid point- that I wrote this piece because I failed to pass the UPCAT- is a clear manifestation of empty arrogance, of academic bigotry. Yes, it’s a sign of academic insecurity and mediocrity. So your guilty charge is that I wrote this piece because I didn’t pass the UPCAT or that I failed to enter UP for the matter? This is what I have to say: I am very much glad I’m not from UP and never had any plan to study there. It’s an advantage on my part.
Thankfully, there are a few people who defended me, most of whom understand how free-market capitalism works. Let me reproduce what a lone commenter named zerojuan had to say about the behavior of some of his fellow UP commenters:
I guess what the other commenters failed to articulate is this: the unique economic, cultural, and political situation in the Philippines doesn’t fit any of the education models you described.
As a UP grad myself, I feel ashamed (and partly amused) at the way people from my school argue. Parang mga comments lang sa youtube.
With or without any pro-capitalist defender, nobody can ever stop me from writing what I think is right.
Perhaps, a commenter who posted the following below is darn right!
Okay, let’s wrap it up. Based on what I read on this comment section, IT IS PROVEN THAT:
1. Most UP commenters are STUPID/IDIOT or both!
2. Most UP commenters are Lefttists/Socialists.
3. Most UP commenters don’t ever know what they’re talking about.
4. Most UP commenters are MAYAYABANG, as they adduced such invalid arguments as “hindi nakapasa sa UPCAT,” “hindi ka kasi taga-UP”, etc.
4. Most UP commenters know nothing about politics and economics.
5. Most UP commenters are DANGEROUS TO OUR LIVES AND LIMBS!
6. Most UP commenters are BOBO!
7. Most UP commenters are BASTOS!
8. Most UP commenters are TROLLS!
9. Most UP commenters are a threat to this country and to our freedom.
10. Most UP commenters are INSANE!
Therefore, it is for the benefit of this nation and of everybody to PRIVATIZE UP and other public universities!