Skip to content

Cut the Education Budget on College Hippies!

November 26, 2010

 

 

I don't think these people deserve "higher education subsidy." Every freedom-loving individual in this country has the duty to condemn this ongoing farce before it leads us to bankruptcy.

I don't think these people deserve "higher education subsidy." Every freedom-loving individual in this country has the duty to condemn this ongoing farce before it leads us to bankruptcy.

“Here’s the thing that gets me so angry. The most destructive charity on the planet is the government. Can you come up with an organization that takes thousands of dollars from you every month and then it disappears? This is the worst, most corrupt charity on the planet.”Greg Gutfeld

MUST READ:

The Proper Concept of Rights: For the Educated Idiots in the Philippines

French Founders to 1987 Constitution Framers: IGNORAMUSES!

What if They Went on Strike?

A Facebook friend posted an infuriating article (about students and faculty of state colleges and universities who protested budget cuts on education subsidy) on his Facebook wall in which he made the following interesting comment: “My political philosophy dictates that there must be reduction of government spending including social services. However, the motivations behind these cuts are not exactly about having a small government. Hence, I cannot fully support it. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly condemn the Spirit of Entitlement behind these walk outs. I also say… the same thing with those students who stormed UK’s Parliament.”

Here’s what I said in response to his comment: “The “motivation” may not be about reducing the size of government, but such a ‘policy’ (to cut spending) is the most commonsensical reaction to the current state of our government. Whether or not it was motivated by small government, one must make a moral judgment. I have made mine, and I condemn these college know-it-all hippies and their professors and officials at UP and other state colleges and universities.”

The Philippine Society and Individual Freedom

First, let me say that that Facebook friend of mine is from the University of the Philippines and he calls himself “agnostic Libertarian”, which means he believes in limited government.

The news article posted on Abs-cbnnews.com is about students, faculty and officials of state universities who protested against the billion-peso cut on the budgets of government funded colleges and universities.

Students, faculty and officials of state universities on Thursday protested against the billion-peso cut on the budgets of state universities and colleges.

To attack public education and welfare statism, one must identify their philosophical roots: the concept of “right” to education” and of a ‘Santa Claus’ government. We cannot approach this issue by simply pointing out distressing statistics and empirical studies on the failure of public education.

In response to the growing clamor of some sectors of our society that benefit from government subsidy, I wrote the following in my post titled Separate State from Education:

I have stated several times that privatization of ALL public schools, colleges, and universities is NOT the first reform. It is economically, socially, and politically dangerous to embark on an abrupt, unplanned privatization of all public SUCs without addressing first other government areas that could be the subject of initial reform process so as not to cause much damage to the economy. I’m not an economist, but I think that the first wave of reforms must start within the government. Depending upon how government officials and planners weigh things out, they may start with the burdensome, high-spending government agencies, corporations, and other state instrumentalities, particularly the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR). The fundamental process is to revise the 1987 Constitution in order to establish a Republican government whose role is purely limited by the fundamental law of the land.

The only proper role of the government is to protect individual rights. That is, 1) to protect individual from violation of contracts and fraud and to settle disputes through the establishment of effective law courts; 2) to protect our country against internal threat and invasion through building a formidable military; and to protect individuals against criminals through establishing a reliable police force. These are the only proper role of the government of a free society.The primary function of the Constitution of a new Republican government, on the other hand, is to limit the powers of the government and its agents. All government powers and those of its agents must only be limited to the protection of individual rights.

Now is the time to cut the budget on state universities and colleges, which are some of the main targets of communist propaganda and recruitment. The continued rise of student activism is just one of the destabilization goals of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The communist planners clearly understand the role of the youth in the revolutionary struggle. Perhaps not all student activists or militants fully understand what they’re wishing for. Their activist mantra— “better and free access to education”— which is being lauded by socialist politicians in Congress, does not belong to a semi-Republican society, but to a socialist slave pen.

Education is not a right. A ‘right’ means man’s freedom of action in a social context. It pertains only to human action, specifically, to man’s freedom of action. A person is not born with a right to a trip to tour the country’s tourist destinations. A person has no in-born, innate right to a dinner at Manila Hotel, or a free cosmetic surgery at Belo Medical Clinic or a college degree in Nursing or Medicine. Those who argue that every person in these parts has the right to free education either do not understand the proper concept of right or have sinister political agenda. We cannot have such right to a better and free access to education because the concept of individual rights in a free society does not impose any obligation on other people. The only obligation or responsibility of every individual is to leave his neighbor alone, to not violate his rights, to not interfere with his private life. We don’t have a right to enslave the productive members of our society.

Free access to education simply means socialized or highly subsidized education. It means that someone has to be immolated or sacrificed to others in the name of the greater good. While students in private schools, colleges, and universities pay the ‘agreed’ amount of school fees, student activists would like to be exempted from this obligation. I used the word ‘agreed’ since student consultation is required by the government through the CHED before any tertiary school is permitted to increase its tuition rate. If students activists demand exemption, the question is: who would pay for their “better and free education?” The taxpayers, of course.

In the Philippines, the most taxed and regulated by the government (e.g., corporations, businesses, and other profitable private entities and individuals) are being denounced by the leftists and their new student recruits. While these socialist ingrates call for more government spending on education, health care and other public services, they blatantly vilify and call for the enslavement of those who produce the goods and make wealth possible.

The evil political ideology behind “free access to education” is very clear: Socialism. Five to ten years from now, the young leftists in our campuses would become part of our social system, and they would be instrumental in the concretization of the ideology they absorbed from their leftist professors and the neo-liberal intellectuals. Our campuses are like a ticking time bomb. Most of which, particularly the taxpayers-funded colleges and universities, are a threat to our freedom and to the future of this country.

The future commies in the Philippines.

Here’s an excerpt of the news story:

Hundreds of students and faculty gathered in front of UP Diliman’s Palma Hall for the protests, based on reports by Tinig ng Plaridel, the official student publication of the UP College of Mass Communication (CMC).

As of 1:30 pm, the Philippine Collegian, UP Diliman’s main student publication, reported “thousands” of students on campus walked out of their classes in support of the protests.

Rain Sindayen of the UP Student Council told ABS-CBN News they will also hold an overnight vigil Thursday evening at Palma Hall.

They are also scheduled to march to Mendiola, Manila on Friday.

The students and the faculty of the University of the Philippines in Manila also walked out of their classrooms at around 10 a.m. and walked around Taft Avenue as part of their protest.

At noon, they held a boodle fight, eating tuyo, rice, and kamatis together with school staff as a sign of unity.

At the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), meanwhile, students also held protest actions.

Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino, who was at the PUP rally, said that they won’t stop protesting the cuts until President Aquino pays attention to them.

Billions of pesos cut from budgets

Earlier, officials and students of the country’s state universities and colleges (SUCs) announced they will hold a series of protest actions in their campuses to oppose the cuts.

In a press conference, officials of the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC), along with Palatino, announced they would be staging campus strikes “to urge the government to increase the operating budget and allocate adequate funds for the capital outlay of our cash-strapped state schools.”

A total of P1.1 billion was slashed in the 2011 budget for the operations of the 97 SUCs in the country, while not a single centavo was earmarked for the construction of new buildings and facilities. Funds for student financial assistance were also cut by 43%.

The University of the Philippines (UP) and the Philippine Normal University (PNU) are among the top 5 SUCs that will suffer the biggest budget cuts.

UP’s budget will be reduced by P1.39 billion to P5.5 billion in 2011 from P6.9 billion in 2010, while PNU’s will be slashed by P92 million to P295.88 million from P387.23 million.

RELATED POSTS:

“Right to Education” Advocates: Evil Enemies of Individual Freedom!

“Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex” is an Evil Concept

Separate State from Education!

Dealing with Mediocrity

Freedom in Education Versus Right to Education

The Evils of Public Education; Why UP and All Public SUCs Must be Privatized?

The “Right to Education” is an Invalid Concept

What About the Poor Who Can’t Pay for their Education?

To All UP Students: Education is NOT a Right!

The Case of Some Top State U College-Bred

Let the Whole Woodstock of Hippies Disagree With Me!

Advertisements
135 Comments leave one →
  1. zosimus permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    Originally posted at http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/25/10/students-walk-out-over-budget-cuts#comment-81592

    First off, communism and socialism isn’t such a bad concept. Sana alamin mo muna kung ano yung ibig sabihin nun before labelling them as evil. Basa ka pa at pagaralan mo pa ha okay?

    Regarding the definition of what a “right” is, please refer to your “Education is not a right” blog. Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it

    Natutuwa ako sa style mo ng pagsulat, exaggerated para istir ang emotions ng readers. Obviously OA naman yung sinasabi mo. We agree to pay for what is due, we’re not aiming for free education. Highly subsidized? Yes, as it is SUPPOSED to be.

    OA ang slavery, we don’t want anyone serving us. Di niyo ba pwedeng tignan toh as an act of goodwill? Sabi ko nga kanina, kung pinaglaban namin ang budget cut sa UP, we are making your every peso investment on us count. No budget cut = better quality education = better graduates. Yes budget cut = walang iskolar = walang investment.

    Sorry kung napaka-komportable mo sa kinatatayuan mo ah. Threat kami sa freedom ng bansa? Para ngang ikaw ang nagiging threat sa freedom ng bansa, ikaw ang masnagmumukhang gusto sa slavery sa atin. Gusto mo na lang habang-buhay na pinagsisilbihan ng mahihirap nag mayayaman by qualifying eduaction as a privilege, whereas education is the key towards the liberation of the masses from the oppresive state that is poverty. PLEASE, don’t enslave us by cutting the budget of SUC’s. Halatang isa kang capitalist fool na nagp-promote ng unity of the country through MONEY and POWER rather than through internal prosperity.

    • November 26, 2010 3:38

      You communist said: “communism and socialism isn’t such a bad concept.”

      Why so? Kindly lay down your defense of this evil, murderous concept?

      You commie said: “Regarding the definition of what a “right” is, please refer to your “Education is not a right” blog. Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it.”

      Kindly enumerate them?

      You commie said: “OA ang slavery, we don’t want anyone serving us.”

      Taking the property or earnings of other people to redistribute them is a form of theft or extortion, whether it’s done by the government or by a private individual. Those whose property and earnings are forced at the point of gun by the state to pay increased taxes are SLAVES while those who benefit from the loot are beneficiaries and masters.

      Based on what you said, the more the government should cut or even ABOLISH UP and other state-funded colleges and universities. You, college know-it-all hippies, are a threat to our freedom and future. When you, hippies, graduate and become part of our ruling elites by virtue of your being UPians that’s the time you put into action and concrete forms and policies the anti-freedom and statist teachings you absorbed from your statist and liberal professors.

      • zosimus permalink
        November 26, 2010 3:38

        I’m no communist. Stop your name-calling bullshit stereotyping prejudiced capitalist swine. At least my name-calling was deduced from your arguments, not merely from stereotypes or prejudices.

        Gee, a society where no one is necessarily above another person? What’s so evil about that? The means on how to achieve such a society? That’s up to the revolutionists. But if you were to ask me, the country isn’t ready for democracy, nor can it sustain communism or socialism. Rather, righteous dictatorship should be the system of the Philippine government for optimized development. Just because I think communism and socialism is not such a evil concept doesn’t make me a commie. Tandaan mo yan assuming boy.

        As I’ve said, OA ang paggamit mo ng slavery. And by your definition of “slavery” then you should file a case against the government, theft and extortion pala eh. We all benefit from the taxpayers’ money, thus making every citizen of the country masters. Most of us (marami rin kasing unemployed bums :p) become taxpayers ourselves, making most of us slaves, hindi exemption ang mga studyante ng SUC’s. Pagisipan mo kaya muna definition mo.

        Capitalist swines like yourself are the threat to the people’s freedom. NOTE people should not just include those who belong to your socio-economic status, but it should include ALL people concerned. Ang paglaban sa abot-kayang edukasyon ay hindi threat sa kalayaan. Pinpairal pa nga nito ang kalayaan. Tangina may utak ka ba?

        Wag mo nga pala damayin mga prof namin, di naman nila tinuturo ang activism and liberalism within the classroom. Kami na ang nakapagisip ng gusto namin, at naisip namin yun kasi nasa konteksto kami na mukhang yon ang solusyon. Ang assuming mo swine, tingin mo magiging oppresive kami pag nagka executive position kami? On what basis?

        Teka nga, LIBERAL nga diba? Pano naging anti-freedom ang LIBERAL?

        Utak please

      • November 26, 2010 3:38

        “I’m no communist.”

        Oh, that’s funny! lol! You think ““communism and socialism isn’t such a bad concept” and you’re no commie. That’s funny, really! Well, the label communism does not matter. What matters is what you believe. You believe in state-funded education and perhaps state-funded health care, transportation, and everything the people need. That’s just one MAIN ATTRIBUTE of communism.

        You said: “As I’ve said, OA ang paggamit mo ng slavery. And by your definition of “slavery” then you should file a case against the government, theft and extortion pala eh.”

        You have a very literal interpretation of slavery, which shows your simplistic understanding of things and reality. Perhaps the word reminds you of the black slaves 100 years ago and the Hebrew slaves during the reign of ancient Egypt. That confirms the intellectual bankruptcy of people like you.

        The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Oh yes, you’re asking for an institutionalized slavery. That’s a fact. The more money and privileges you ask, the more the government is justified to institute “slave” laws that would enslave others. Take for example the proposal to tax text. Do you know why our politicians are targeting the telecom companies? It’s because they are successful and that they have the money and they produce wealth that people like you need and demand. That’s the reality. Reality has it that the government has no money. We have high budget deficit and high foreign debt, yet you, hippies, ask for more government spending. Where’s justice there?

        I hope you understand the concept or principle of correlation here. All your demands, whining and everything justify the use of government or state force to take on the successful sectors of our society. Take for example the evil RH bill. Since the government is already cash-strapped and in high debt, there’s this important provision in the bill that seeks to force employers and doctors to serve the interest of the poor and women just because the latter need RH care services.

        Now you people want more. Yes, you are socialists and hippies and you are in state of denial! It’s time for us to face reality before it’s too late.

      • Ciro permalink
        November 26, 2010 3:38

        @Froivinber
        Nice article. Hope your opinions get as many people who can’t think for themselves as fired up as you are.

        P.S.
        You argue like a 6-year old. Very witty, all the name-calling.
        You know, if I were you I’d delete Zosimus’ comment. Unless you know, you like showing everyone how you just got your balls handed to you in a comment thread.

      • November 26, 2010 3:38

        @ zosimus,

        You commie said: “Teka nga, LIBERAL nga diba? Pano naging anti-freedom ang LIBERAL?”

        See? You’re not even aware of the lexical revolution being waged by those who try to rob you of your freedom.

        The term “liberal” has long been hijacked by the socialists and statists in the US. So it’s now a battle between the pro-rights and pro-freedom “classical liberals” and the anti-rights and statist “liberals” and socialists. Check this video to inform yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU

        On the other hand, the socialists call themselves “neo-liberals”, which proves they have adopted the lexical distortion of their counterparts in the US. Source: http://tonyocruz.com/?p=933

        @ Ciro,

        Get real. There are times that we should confront evil and call them on their stupidity.

        As to “name-calling”, that clearly shows your inability to think properly. I confronted that charge here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/welfare-state-the-agenda-behind-the-rh-bill/ . Think and try to use your mind properly.

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Hindi ka pa rin natututo?

        It’s as simple as this. According to the Philippine Constitution (heard of it?), accessible education is a right. Now, if you just can’t wrap your head around that fact, then you have every right to go find your own little island and put up your own UP-less, un-communist, tax-free government that doesn’t recognize education as a right, and live free from threats to your freedom and future while you make imaginary love to Ayn Rand. Go ahead, no one’s going to stop you. Karapatan mo yan eh.

        Oh, and the Vicenton Post is a stupid name for a blog. Honesty, objectivity, and integrity my ass. Sham journalist.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ Eggggggg,

        here’s the blogger’s answer to that idiocy.

        What is the proper concept of rights? This is a very important question that most people take for granted these days. Most people believe that a right is an entitlement to anything and/or something. For instance, most people in this country, Philippines, claim they have a right to certain basic needs such as education, food, clothing, housing, health care, medicine, etc. If this is the case- if people have a right to “something”- then who will provide the goods and services they need?

        The question I posed above is what most Filipinos ignore. Why? Perhaps because they believe that the word “rights” has no objective, proper meaning at all. For them, the word “rights” is like a bumper sticker or an expression they love to exploit whenever they feel the urge of wanting to take ‘something’ that’s not theirs. Perhaps they believe: “I have a right to “this” or “that” so back off!”

        Now is the time to confront this kind of people who still live in a world of fantasy. For these people, reality is not even percepts, but words. Words do not convey any objective meaning at all so they believe that “rights” is something they can comfortably use in certain situations. “I have a right to education so the government must provide it to me,” some people say. Others believe they have a right to affordable medicine and health care, so they ask their congressmen to introduce a bill that would compel drug stores and pharmaceutical companies to cut the prices of their commodities in the name of the poor and the common good.

        When most educated people talk about these species of rights- and when students and graduates from the University of the Philippines and other so-called elite schools defend these alleged ‘rights’- that’s the time you start to witness the beginning of the collapse of our society. And these educated people believe they know what they’re talking about!

        Most of our top politicians are products of these so-called elite schools, now look at the kind of system or social programs they created for our society. Yes, these educated elites shaped our ailing society in their own image. The kind of social system that we have right now is the product of their premises- of their beliefs- of their convictions- of their collective stupidity and ignorance. Yet they believe their being “graduates of elite schools” gives them the right to rule our lives according to their mangled, distorted understanding of reality.

        The 1987 Constitution is the product of the collective ignorance and idiocy of of our intellectuals in the past two decades, yet nobody dared to ask the right, proper, moral questions. It is true that many people, mostly interested politicians, would like to have our charter revised or amended, but are they asking the right, proper questions? Are they motivated by the right reasons? Our semi-socialist, politically correct, progressive, protectionist Constitution needs to be amended (not revised) if this society is to survive. But before any revision can be made it is highly crucial to ask this fundamental question: “What is the proper concept of rights and what is the proper role of government?” The answer to this question is the only key to our collective salvation.

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/the-proper-concept-of-rights-for-the-educated-idiots-in-the-philippines/

        you really need some reeducation.

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        @aristogeek

        I guess that’s the problem, then. You people keep insisting on your own definition of what a right is, while the rest of the world adheres to the more general definition, which includes “something to which one has a just claim,” or “something that one may properly claim as due.” You can’t just impose your own (or Ayn Rand’s, whatever) definition of what a right is on other people. Dictionaries exist.

        So, yeah, maybe you guys are actually right. In your own world, that is. Yup, sounds more like you two are living in your own little world of fantasy, with your made-up definitions for things that make you feel better and are especially convenient when arguing with people.

        And so what if a lot of your so-called top politicians are from “elite” universities? (Do you even have any solid basis for that?) People elected them, hence, they are there. You can’t exactly prove that “elite” schools are to blame for the situation this country is in based on just that, can you? (Ooh, do I smell a fallacy?)

        The section on education was put in the Constitution, and still exists in the Constitution, because it serves the interests of the Filipino people. If what you say made half as much sense to everyone else, then the Constitution would have long been amended. But it hasn’t been, and if you can’t deal with that, then take it up with the right people, just like we’re taking the issue of the budget cut on SUCs up to the Senate. Good luck with that.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ eggggggggggggggggggggggg,

        please answer my questions below:

        try to educate yourself by reading these:

        http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm

        http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3285

        http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=537

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        So in your fantasy world, linking to clearly biased sites such as http://www.UNisevil.com is supposed to change other people’s opinions and is considered “educating” them?

        LOL. If all of you who believe in that stuff think that way, no wonder the Constitution is still as it is.

        Try presenting that to the House or the Senate, it might just work!

        Hahaha! God, you’re funny.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        you’re the one who’s so hilarious and idiotic here. why not answer my post below?

        and kindly state your disagreement with the post i gave you? it’s easy to dismiss a thing without solid arguments.

        in fact, your own definition of a right is so outlandish and so mediocre. it only exists in your mind. kindly give a citation?

        my golly! i think you’re nuts! lol!

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Answer what post?

        I disagree with your links because they’re way too biased. Simple as that.

        If I gave you links to UNisawesome.com or capitalismsucks.com, I’d be hard-pressed to make you agree with me, too.

        Outlandish and mediocre? At least my definition came from a dictionary. And dictionaries are objective.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ Eggg,

        Aristogeek posted his comment below… Please follow this link https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/cut-the-education-budget/#comment-6129

        Also, I made a comment below his post. I hope you’re going to respond properly and professionally. Thanks

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/cut-the-education-budget/#comment-6133

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Oh, didn’t see that there. Thanks. I will reply in due time.

        I wish you’d tell aristogeek to respond properly and profesionally, as well, though. Looks like he needs it.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        OK. You will reply in due time? But I thought you have this instant idea or answer on your mind because first salvo here tells me you know better. I’d like to know whether you really know better.

        Here’s what you said above:

        “Hindi ka pa rin natututo? It’s as simple as this. According to the Philippine Constitution (heard of it?), accessible education is a right. Now, if you just can’t wrap your head around that fact, then you have every right to go find your own little island and put up your own UP-less, un-communist, tax-free government that doesn’t recognize education as a right, and live free from threats to your freedom and future while you make imaginary love to Ayn Rand. Go ahead, no one’s going to stop you. Karapatan mo yan eh. Oh, and the Vicenton Post is a stupid name for a blog. Honesty, objectivity, and integrity my ass. Sham journalist.”

        I’d like you to explain your concept of “just claim” and everything because that’s the very first time I heard them. Unless you’re trying to present your new theory. There is an established concept of rights. It originated from Aristotle down to John Locke and the Founding Fathers of America. Their concept of “rights” is VERY MUCH consisted with what Vincenton is saying here.

        Now you pointed to the Philippine Constitution. I ask you to get a copy of the American Constitution and the Phil. 1987 Constitution. You may use google. Try to check whether the US constitution states that the Americans have the right to education, health care, housing, etc.

        Guess what? You will see NONE!

        I refer you to this post by Vincenton https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/constitution-framers-ignoramuses/

        Read the Stanford link I provided below and try to understand the proper concept of rights. Try to do more research too! And the UN? That institution has obliterated the proper concept of rights!

        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Chill, man, I just needed time to type out and organize my thoughts.

  2. xyxy permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/budget+cut
    — More opinions from UP students regarding this budget cut.

    “to urge the government to increase the operating budget and allocate adequate funds for the capital outlay of our cash-strapped state schools.”
    — Wow, sounds like the government has lots of money these days!

    • zosimus permalink
      November 26, 2010 3:38

      Marami talaga, napupunta nga lang sa militar at mga pork barrel. Misallocation of budget much?

      • Hyaku_Shiki permalink
        November 26, 2010 3:38

        naku sir, sorry ah. pero wala kang mapapala sa pakikipag diskurso sa taong ito. sarado na isip nyan eh. maaaw. lulunurin ka ng todo nyan sa rhetorics tapos pag nahilo ka na, sisipain ka. poof.

      • November 26, 2010 3:38

        @ Hyaku,

        in short, you’re a bimbo… lol!

  3. ainia permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    “The only proper role of the government is to protect individual rights. That is, 1) to protect individual from violation of contracts and fraud and to settle disputes through the establishment of effective law courts; 2) to protect our country against internal threat and invasion through building a formidable military; and to protect individuals against criminals through establishing a reliable police force. These are the only proper role of the government of a free society.The primary function of the Constitution of a new Republican government, on the other hand, is to limit the powers of the government and its agents. All government powers and those of its agents must only be limited to the protection of individual rights.”

    READ JOHN LOCKE SERIOUSLY, dude. Even the first social contract theorist who had an idea of true Liberty and protection of Property knew that the state has to EDUCATE its citizens.

    and about SOCIALISM, mag-aral ka na rin ng political ideologies. You don’t realize how nearly every state has been trying to strike the balance between capitalism and socialism all the while. Because even when we want freedom, we don’t want chaos and social inequality.

    two words: THINK AGAIN.

    • November 26, 2010 3:38

      “READ JOHN LOCKE SERIOUSLY, dude. Even the first social contract theorist who had an idea of true Liberty and protection of Property knew that the state has to EDUCATE its citizens.”

      First read this to reeducate yourself: French Founders to 1987 Constitution Framers: IGNORAMUSES!

      And this: The Proper Concept of Rights: For the Educated Idiots in the Philippines

      Exactly those are the things you learned in college.

      Of course I respect John Locke. I wrote about his philosophy here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/the-altruist-collectivist-mentality/ .

      About social contract, that’s an evil, invalid concept. I wrote about that here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/salus-populi-est-suprema-lex-is-an-evil-concept/ .

      I wrote: “Now going back to “salus populi est suprema lex”, it is an evil concept because it merely looks at one element, undercutting and negating two most important elements: the proper function of the government and the nature of man. This concept simply means that the welfare of the people is the paramount law. But what constitutes the welfare of the people? If welfare means the protection of individual rights by the government, then I would say that this concept is valid. But let me make it very clear that “salus populi est suprema lex” is now part of the neo-liberal domain, along with the so absurd concepts of “social contract,” “greater good,” summum bonum” (popularized by Immanuel Kant whom I consider the greatest enemy of reason), “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”, etc. The liberal and socialist definition of “welfare” is anything that is good for the society as a whole, and that this the good is achieved through whatever means possible. Salus populi est suprema lex is indeed a Machiavellian concept, which means that so long as everybody gains benefit from a particular social welfare, then it is good and moral even through it is achieved through immoral or evil means. Chief example of this is the “right to education” that legalizes theft and extortion by the government in order to serve the good or welfare of a particular group of people.”

      It’s you who needs more thinking and perhaps even reeducation.

      As to socialism, I’ve written several articles explaining what this concept means, things that your liberal, stupid professors don’t know about… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/advocacy-capitalism/

      • ainia permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        “But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state…”

        – Aristotle

        Mind you, I don’t think you’re a god.

  4. Too much idealism is bad for your mental health! See reality! permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    Au contraire… The Philippine constitution clearly states that the government shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. You’re the one who doesn’t know anything about our rights as Filipinos.

    Don’t you know that only 23 percent of the country’s youth are able to enroll in colleges and universities, and out of this percentage, only 17 percent are able to graduate. If you leave our people uneducated, they’ll be the poor of the future! Take some econ subjects for heaven’s sake! You can’t understand the world with only political science in your mind!!!

    • Ponder the data permalink
      November 26, 2010 3:38

      (Double post due to faulty google chrome)

      How many is 17% of 23%?
      That’s approximately 4% of you youth’s population. The government should be doing something to solve this problem and not exacerbate it!

      • November 26, 2010 3:38

        Too crude… read my related posts.

  5. SEE REALITY STUPID permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    Au contraire.. Our constitution clearly states that the government shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. You’re the one who doesn’t know anything about our rights as Filipinos.

    Don’t you know that 23 percent of the country’s youth are able to enroll in colleges and universities, and out of this percentage, only 17 percent are able to graduate. If you leave the people uneducated, you’ll make them the poor of the future! Take some econ subjects for heaven’s sake! You can’t understand the world with only political science on your mind!

    • November 26, 2010 3:38

      Reality shows that you’re stupid. yes, our constitution guarantees such a right, but so are the constitutions of Cuba, China, North Korea and all socialists and fascist countries.

      Talagang product ka ng public school. Kung ano na lang ang sinabi ng professor at ng libro yun na ang tama. Hindi porke nasa constitution tama na, bopols. Mag-isip ka. Gamitin mo utak at kukute mo. Kung lahat na lang ay ipo-provide ng gobyerno, ano na lang ang mangyari sa bansa natin. Kung gusto mo, pimunta ka sa North Korea, bopols.

      Pati mga mayayamang bansa kagaya ng France, Great Britain at Sweden ay hindi na kayang pondohan ang kanilang public education at free tuition fee para sa college. At umalis na rin ang mga businesses kasi sobrang laki ang tax sa mga bansang yun. The more public services the government provide you, the higher taxes it collects, stupid!

      Wala akong pakialam kung 23 percent ay hindi kayang mag-enrol sa college. Hindi yan responsiblidad ng gobyerno, kasi walang pera ang gobyerno dahil umaasa lang ito sa BUWIS at UTANG, bopols! Trabaho ang malayang kalakalan ang kelangan ng bansa natin para magkaroon ng trabaho ang mga mahihirap. Pero papanong mag-invest dito ang mga foreign companies kung malaki ang buwis at maraming regulasyong dahil sa inyong mga public school people at mga komunista? Kayo ang SALOT sa lipunang ito at ang kapal pa ng mukha niyong mag-demand ng mas malaking pondo at magalit sa mga tumututol sa kahunghangan ninyo mga SANGKATUTAK NA BOBO!

      • unbuttoned permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        You are too stupid. Dumbo. Didn’t pass the UPCATs? You are clearly a dumbass who thinks the reason rallies are being held is because you think we need subsidy. Too stupid. We argue on the stupid president’s stupid move of cutting 1.3 billion pesos off the SUC budget. We argue on your stupid president’s move of incrementing the budgets on the military and the pork barrel. For you dumbo’s sake, it’s not actually a secret that most of these congressmen are frauds and thiefs.

        You are clearly someone who thinks he’s too high off from those from state universities just because he’s studying at some expensive, but inferior university.

        BOPOLS. So kalye. It’s surprising you know basic English. Congrats, dude. You’re too bopols.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ Unbottoned,

        you have just unbottoned your idiocy lol!

        you said: “You are too stupid. Dumbo. Didn’t pass the UPCATs? You are clearly a dumbass who thinks the reason rallies are being held is because you think we need subsidy. Too stupid.”

        UPCATs? how many upcats, dumbo? lol! so you don’ need subsidy? what the hell’s your problem then?

        you said: “We argue on the stupid president’s stupid move of cutting 1.3 billion pesos off the SUC budget. We argue on your stupid president’s move of incrementing the budgets on the military and the pork barrel.”

        you argue because you believe you still need subsidy? admit it, parasite. you need subsidy or alms that’s why you work your ass hard in the street. get real, parasite!

      • xyxy permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        “Didn’t pass the UPCATs?”

        Why are some UP students such jerks? It’s pointless to brag that you passed the UPCAT. It’s a multiple choice test and anyone can use his guessing skills! If you really must brag, brag about how you managed to get out with a degree and honors (assuming that you did not cheat or survived by having the “easy” professors).

      • The guy with the vampire box avatar permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        If you really want the Philippine to rise from its despicable state, then we should concentrate on education.

        Decades ago when the Philippines has the most potential in Asia, Korea was poorer than Bangladesh. Now look at South Korea! What’s the reason for Korea’s development? It’s education!

        If you won’t listen to your professors, then I don’t know why you go to school. And by the way, you obviously sound stupid when you commented on the constitution. If you won’t abide by the constitution, then leave the country!

      • Vampire permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        Para saan ba’t binoto pa natin ang mga government officials natin? Pangako nila yan! Tanga ka ba?! Anong hindi karapatan?

        Bakit nga ba umuutang at nangongolekta ng taxes? Di ba para sa mga mamayang Pilipino? Kung wala kang pakialam sa 23% na yan… Wala kang pakialam sa Pilipinas…

        Gumawa ka na lang ng sarili mong isla

  6. jepchupogi permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    @guy with the vampire box for an avatar…

    The concept of a right is a right to action, not a right to an object (which in this case, education). If you guys would read some more of frovin’s past blog, it is this definition that he is pushing, and he has explained, gave examples, clarified, and did everything so that readers will be able to understand that concept. So please read his other posts so that you may grasp his premises and arguments.

    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/the-proper-concept-of-rights-for-the-educated-idiots-in-the-philippines/

    With his definition then, we can say that the constitution has the incorrect concept of rights, its other provisions also call for some right to an object, which is incorrect and already pointed out by frovin in his past posts. (and capitalism.org)

    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/stupidityup/
    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/idiots-guide-to-my-anti-public-education-argument/
    http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm
    http://www.capitalism.org/faq/education.htm

    So claiming you have a right based on the constitution which has an incorrect concept of rights makes your claim invalid.

    Another thing, you must have been taught some form of Keynesian economics or Marxian economics, because state funding the needs of the people (government spending) seems to be the general theme of your argument.

    I will refer you to another school of economics which you might have not read yet, and the anti capitalistic mindset (refer to the end of my post)

    @Zosimus
    “Sabi ko nga kanina, kung pinaglaban namin ang budget cut sa UP, we are making your every peso investment on us count.”

    I would like to say that the purpose of scholarships is to reward the competent/ deserving, not to support the incompetent/ undeserving. The UP system STFAP (Socialized Tuition Fee Assistance Program) has brackets a,b,c,d,e; each has a corresponding price on units, but all of them subsidized. Now tell me, are all students efficient? I cross registered in UP and i see some students just waste time and money and getting a 5, some aiming to get a 4 for a second chance, some get 3 and praise God! Only a few exceptional students get into the position of college scholar (grade of 1.75) or university scholar (grade of 1.45). Tell me, is this what you call efficient? “making your every peso investment on us count”? Please explain your standard of efficiency to justify the support the taxpayers on students that do not fall into the College/University scholar category. DOST scholarship is quite forgiving at a grade of 2, but i don’t see the necessity of supporting the others. These college/university scholars can easily get scholarships from private institutions, thus not needing government support. Where is your efficiency now?

    Frovin’s stance, viewpoint and arguments does include all people concerned, it concerns their freedom and individual rights. Read back his past articles, and you will see him defend individual rights.

    Let me refer you to the inefficiency of government intervention and to the anti-capitalist mindset (refer to the end of my post), find yourself in one of the descriptions of Mises and pls post your reflection.

    @ frovin
    Bravo, I am continually amazed on how you can put up with people and continue to refer them to your previous blogs which they probably don’t read.

    I also would like to refer you to Mises’book “The anti capitalistic mentality (if you have not read it yet) it may give you a glimpse on why these people act like that.

    ———————–

    Please refer to these:

    Hazlitt – Economics in one lesson
    http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

    Mises – The Anti-capitalistic Mentality
    http://mises.org/books/anticapitalistic_mentality_mises.pdf

    Both are ebook pdf, and an easy and light read.

    Cheers!

    • November 27, 2010 3:38

      Let me add that if these really want to push for affordable or even free college education, I think one of the best solutions (apart from free-market education) is tax credits. Giving tax credits, I believe, is not the best solution; it’s just one of the means to give parents the choice and to lessen government spending. Those who wish to send their kids to private colleges and universities would be entitled to tax credits.

      This system has economic advantages to both parents and the government/taxpayers:

      1. It lessens government spending on education;

      2. It gives parents the choice;

      3. It encourages private colleges and universities (and even primary and secondary school, in case they’re covered) to improve their facilities and instruction due to the presence of competition;

      4. The government should focus its attention on protecting rights;

      5. Generally, it leads to improved quality of education.

      As to Mises’ The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, I’ve read its first chapters. I actually posted an excerpt of the book thanks (with permission). I wish to finish the book this month. I read Henry Hazlitt’s book a few months ago. I wrote about Mises here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/quo-vadis-ludwig-von-mises/ . I applied Hazitt’s concept of “bad economist” in this blog https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/prof-monsod-versus-free-market-capitalism-and-freedom/

      Thanks!

    • unbuttoned permalink
      November 27, 2010 3:38

      You are clearly someone from outside the UP system. You are clearly ignorant to think that 1.75 is just 1.75. I don’t know anything about your school, but a 1.75 is difficult to get, even for UP students. I’d bet the world you’d fail, dumbo. Maybe you cross enrolled in a Philippine Arts major subject. You could probably get a 1.75 there.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ unbottoned,

        that means you don’t deserve any subsidy. admit it, parasite. if you think you’re really great because you’re from up, then why not enroll private universities and then get yourself a scholarship grant? it’s that simple. judging from the way your argue, you’re nothing but a parasitical dumbo!

      • xyxy permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        The way I see it, seriously, it depends on who your prof is. There are profs who give out 1.00 grades like there’s no tomorrow (“nagpapaulan ng uno”), there are those who are damn hard to please (some are even batshit crazy) and of course, there are normal ones (who actually know how to grade people).

        P.S. I’m from UP Diliman.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        @ unbuttoned
        The only valid claim you made as a reply is “1.75 is difficult to get, even for UP students.” and i would say that this is true. the other claims just attacks my character, tsk tsk.

        Now if you really want to debunk me, let me give you some tips:
        1. debunk what i said about the purpose of scholarships, and propose your own purpose for scholarship.
        2.I have made a standard to judge who is competent and who are not by using the UP grade system since we are talking about UP. To support your answer for number 1, you must also debunk the rationale of the UP grade system and come up with another rational one of your own.
        3. Finally, explain why your framework becomes an efficient form of utilizing government funds.

        I have tackled the first 2 issues in my previous post, and i will now answer #3:

        Supporting those who are 1.75 and above will mean that the government funds is getting its greatest returns from these people as opposed to the returns of supporting everyone (in terms of grades); BUT, it cannot expect the people who graduated to work for the government or work in the Philippnes (Monsod’s video is enough proof that people don’t want to work here or the government), therefore the government DOES NOT get its “investment” back in the monetary sense, unless taxing them to death is your notion of getting your investment back, but it isn’t its just coercion.
        My conclusion: government funding the true scholars is still inefficient (as a whole), but more efficient than supporting everyone (grade wise).

        Now, if private institutions fund scholarships… they can enforce some terms through contract, such as a standard of grade, or their parents are given extra quota of work (if they are employees), or getting a course that the institutions prefer, or after graduation they have to work for the institutions, or a combination. Thus both parties wins, student gets to have an education and a job after 4 years, and the institutions get an employee tailored to their needs in 4 yrs.

        Now what will happen to those in the 2 – 3 grade brackets? i feel that this is an issue that needs to be answered, because it concerns both of us. Institutions need a vast array of skill sets, not just 1 kind, and some of these skill sets doesn’t need to be hardcore uno grade (highest). It is that space that we can fill up through contracts with them (just like the above paragraph).

        Alternative forms of financing are also open in the free market, student loans, regular loans etc… are in place to help students and other people; having a part time job is also a viable option for students, and stories of them are not uncommon. In short, you will be able to get an education in a free market, you just have to find it and work for it.

        As a last resort, maybe you can also appeal for religious scholarships if it doesn’t bother your conscience.

        On an unrelated note, i find that you are looking down upon other courses with disdain just because of some obscure valuation that you imposed upon them; i feel disgusted with you because you reveal that being UP is not enough for you to be “on the top” but you resort to the devaluation of your fellow “iskolar ng bayan” so that you may still feel superior. DUDE, respect your fellow iskolar, never mind me a cross reg, but please, give due respect.

      • Troll Warlord permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        Funny how some people here think that the private sector would invest in people. They may give scholarship to a few but never to an array of poor students.

        First of all, the return of investment is too risky and too long.

        Second, the return is not monetary.

        Third, it is against the law to force someone to do something if one doesn’t want to do it. That is the issue of Philippine Science High School. Also, you would notice the Philippine laws usually have monetary compensation as an alternative to indemnify an aggrieved party.

        Fourth, the amount of money required to educate the students in state universities is too big for any private firm to handle.

        Fifth, education may be in nature a private good due to the ease of exclusion and high marginal cost but the cost of letting the people stay uneducated is greater for the state.

        Most of the people here use very hypothetical situations to circumvent the flaws of their reasoning. Tsk tsk… THEY ALSO HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO WASTE.

      • November 28, 2010 3:38

        Troll, better read these to enlighten yourself… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/idiots-guide-to-my-anti-public-education-argument/
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/what-if-they-went-on-strike/

      • Troll Warlord permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        I’ve read the first one. Frankly, you have abstracted too much from reality. The cost of defense is far greater than the cost of educating the people. The innovations in military technology is just too advanced for us. The planes that you see in the air force? They’re junk. That’s why they always crash due to machine error. Whatever increase in budget we do, we can never reach the technological sophistication of the super powers. We can never defend ourselves from an external war. However, insurgencies can always be solved through diplomacy or our current arsenal of junk. (Do you think the NPA and MILF use high tech weapons? I don’t think so)

        Even if you want to increase the budget for the military, who would be your soldiers if you won’t educate your people. By the way, you need to enter specialized public schools in order to be a soldier. There is practically NO FEASIBLE way to finance education for the people other than government provision. The private sector will never be a sufficient substitute because profit-maximizing can never be accomplished in such endeavor.

        I’m quite interested in the field of your specialization. Are you/Were you a political science major? Or are you from philosophy? You seriously lack the economic knowledge to fully grasp the consequences of your opinions.

    • Vampire permalink
      November 28, 2010 3:38

      The constitution can never be wrong because it was made by the people.

      We live in a democratic country where the power is in the hands of the majority which is comprised of poor people. Thus, the Philippine constitution is not only a people’s constitution but also a pro-poor constitution.

      Depriving the people of the education that they deserve is a mistake that would have a very big impact on the country’s economy. Skilled labor is necessary for a country’s development. Unfortunately, this kind of skill can only be earned through tertiary education. Can the rural poor afford it?

      By the way, stop interpreting that subsidized education is free education. It’s just partial subsidy. For heaven’s sake! Don’t exaggerate your statements.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        @ vampire
        The constitution can be wrong because the people can be wrong; wrong in terms of concept (rights) and wrong in terms of interpretation. The process of making a constitution just tries to remove as much as possible the mistakes that people may make (especially interpretations). Your claim then makes the constitution into something infallible when it is not, that’s why there are processes of cha-cha, con-con to be able to change the constitution when mistakes are found out. The reason that we prevented GMA from changing the constitutions is because we fear that she might fuck it up more. Period.

        ———-
        Democracy is not that good, and let me tell you why:
        Situation: A girl is about to be raped by a lot of people.

        A. Democracy
        If majority likes such a show ( i hope not), they can vote yes, and the girl will be raped w/o condemnation to the rapists.
        If majority doesn’t, then the rapist will be condemned

        B.Free market capitalism
        The concept of the right to life, and the right to the pursuit of happiness stands, and no matter how the majority likes the spectacle and votes yes, it will be condemned.

        Of course rape here can be switched to other form of violations of rights, such as taking another persons money and giving to another (tax) etc…

        ———-
        depriving people of education does have a negative impact on the economy in the long run, what i said is that government subsidy is not the solution in delivering the education to the people. pls read

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/cut-the-education-budget/#comment-6158

        I explained that under free market, people will be able to get an education (and its means), from true scholars and others, for those 4 & 5 brackets… hope they pass. I also explained why under the free market, scholar ships become efficient, and at the same time, does not deprive the masses their needed education, because institutions need a varied skill set.

        ———-
        I said “The UP system STFAP (Socialized Tuition Fee Assistance Program) has brackets a,b,c,d,e; each has a corresponding price on units, but all of them subsidized.” Let me emphasize “each has a corresponding price on units” meaning there is a price you have to pay for each unit and “all of them subsidized” meaning you do not pay the full cost of education, government pays it instead. Pls read twice, so that we might not have misunderstandings.

      • Vampire permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        Does the government pay for our school materials? Paper? Field trips? Transportation? It’s not totally free. As I have said, It’s partial subsidy.

        You’re clearly giving a wrong example. Would Congress pass a bill that would enable men to rape?

        Taxes are payments for public goods. The road that you use for example… Do you think that it just poofs out of the air? The people choose their leaders to represent them. If the people doesn’t want the decisions of the leader, they voice it out and acts against the decision.

        I know that democracy has its flaws. I have read the works of Kenneth Arrow. However, it is the system that we have now. You either follow it or you revolt.

        The government needs to take care of the poor because when they get into trouble the government will inevitable take care of them.

        By the way, what do you suggest? Leave the people uneducated? Because subsidy is the only way to make uneducated people learn.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        I never said anything about education being free, pls read this AGAIN!
        ———-
        I said “The UP system STFAP (Socialized Tuition Fee Assistance Program) has brackets a,b,c,d,e; each has a corresponding price on units, but all of them subsidized.” Let me emphasize “each has a corresponding price on units” meaning there is a price you have to pay for each unit and “all of them subsidized” meaning you do not pay the full cost of education, government pays it instead.
        ———-
        I just described partial subsidy, you pay the corresponding fee based on your bracket, then the government pays the rest. Partial subsidy.

        ———-

        I used rape as an example because it is clearly immoral, and under democracy, the will of the majority is followed even though the object they want is immoral.
        Under capitalism however rights to life stand superior against the will of the majority, therefore something immoral can never be passed because it violates rights of certain people

        ———-

        The problem lies on the people that chooses their leaders, look at the current leaders and their actions now, especially to the one to who you are complaining: PNoy. Again, this reflects the lack of discernment on the part of the people in choosing their leaders; in fact, when i voted in May, i voted for the least evil of all the choices.
        I agree with you on the part that we voice out our discontent, and it is what we are doing now, in this space. I voice out my disagreement with big government spending, and you, your complaint against budget cut.

        ———-

        Government taking care of people will require money which it does not have, and it can only get it from taxes, printing money and foreign loans, all have disastrous effects on the economy, and second, it requires powers so that it can take care of the people. Over time, people will clamor for more government handouts and the government will get more money and more power, finally the state will destroy society

        More details here: http://mises.org/daily/4835

        ———-
        I have already suggested a solution to make uneducated people get education, pls read my post here: https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/cut-the-education-budget/#comment-6158

      • What made you think that subsidy is bad? permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        Sorry. I’m practicing speed reading.. Anyway…

        “I used rape as an example because it is clearly immoral, and under democracy, the will of the majority is followed even though the object they want is immoral.
        Under capitalism however rights to life stand superior against the will of the majority, therefore something immoral can never be passed because it violates rights of certain people”

        how would you possibly think that rape would be enforced by a majority? There is no such society that would let women be victims of such injustice. The laws of the land does not only echo the voice of the present people but also the past citizens. Lessons have been learned to perfect the form of law.

        If there are imperfections in the interpretation, then the mistake is with that person and not the constitution. Also, every law has an intent and it must be kept in mind during its interpretation.

        “Government taking care of people will require money which it does not have, and it can only get it from taxes, printing money and foreign loans, all have disastrous effects on the economy, and second, it requires powers so that it can take care of the people. Over time, people will clamor for more government handouts and the government will get more money and more power, finally the state will destroy society”

        I agree on the part about spoiling the people. However, you must distinguish between goods that can be abused and goods that cannot be abused. Education is a good that is better when consumed more. The skills that it can give to society trickles down to the masses. This is different from what you are describing. It sounds more like the conditional cash transfer that Noy Noy is planning to expand. Why should this government give priority to something that gives incentives to laziness and reduce something that can enable the people to work for themselves?

        If you leave the people uneducated, the government can do two things. First, leave them die and rot. This would be politically impossible and morally undesirable. Second, you can teach them how to fish for their own food. Eliminating public school education, especially tertiary education, it is tantamount to letting them rot in the pits of poverty.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        November 29, 2010 3:38

        @ vampire
        Rape (in general, sexual harassment) can be something generally accepted by a society, by having no law against it, having a law that only protects a group (thus excluding other groups), no enforcement of the law, or total disregard for the law (the law is for show). For example, there are stories of filipina ofws in the middle east that have been sexually harassed, beaten and other undesirable situations happen to them.

        example:
        http://mabuhaycity.com/forums/pinoys-abroad/8466-affidavit-horrific-abuse-rape-virgin-filipina-lovely-qatar.html
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA5XPPd-644 (this is part 1 of 5, just look for other parts)

        Perhaps you can argue that such places have laws set up to protect these things from happening, true perhaps, but i say it is not enforced due to the number of these cases popping up. My conclusion here is that support for something immoral need not be legislated to become supported, it is the people, who have the wrong notion, gathered in enough numbers that the support for the immoral becomes apparent.

        ———-

        I am curious why you always stop your analysis at the constitution, think back a little more, i am talking about the time when the constitution is about to be framed, i said that the framers of the constitution are human and prone to error, and one error is their concept of rights as some entitlement to something, and that is why i say that the constitution is wrong, because the framers got it wrong. For an example of an already established law that is objectively wrong look at this:

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/reasons-why-the-american-constitution-is-not-sharia-compliant/

        Frovin has numbered some of the tenets of the sharia law. and i would like to comment on some of the numbers.
        1- grants muslims to the initiation of force (because its law), and to us, we are already enemies even if we had not done anything.
        2- seizing power through force, something we can objectively condemn as immoral.
        3- exemption from the law? WTF?
        5- follow the leader even if he is batshit insane? WTF?
        6-no equality with women
        8-no freedom of religion
        9- no court trials necessary for some crimes, and it is acceptable
        10-another exemption, double standard
        11- self explanatory
        13-inequality is law
        14- double standard on freedom of speech
        20- dude, those are still children
        21,22,26,28-dude, wtf
        31- rape can be compensated by a dowry, wtf
        32- dude, a girl is a sexual organ only? wtf
        33-double standard

        As you can see, sharia is a long established law, and based on some of its provisions/tenets, i condemn it. Of course sharia has little chance of being implemented here, BUT i showed you this so that you may be convinced that just because a set of laws has been long established, it doesn’t mean that it is right.

        ———-

        You didn’t explain the connection between abused (non-abused) goods and education, is is abused, not abused? what? Of all my economics lessons, i can only remember “the tragedy of the commons” where the common good (land in the example) is abused.
        I have to disagree with you on “Education is a good that is better when consumed more” based on this:

        http://www.topix.com/forum/world/tonga/TKL7H0DJNSINK6N95

        It says here that Tonga has one of the highest phd per capita in the world (2009), you can search with google and Tonga keeps popping up. So whats up with Tonga?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga
        Some excerpts:

        Under politics
        “Tonga provides for its citizens:
        free and mandatory education for all
        secondary education with only nominal fees
        and foreign-funded scholarships for post-secondary education”
        “Tongans enjoy a relatively high level of education, with a 98.9% literacy rate”
        “Tongans also have universal access to a national health care system.”

        Under economy
        “a heavy dependence on remittances from the half of the country’s population that lives abroad” – signifying a brain drain of sorts.
        “Tonga was named the sixth most corrupt country in the world by Forbes magazine in 2008.” – wow
        “A number of islands within the Kingdom of Tonga are lacking basic electricity supply.”

        So what has PhDs done for Tonga? 6th most corrupt country? This debunks your claim of more education = better. I am sad to say… not always.

        BUT, do not despair, Israel is also one of the world’s highest PhD per capita.
        http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/the-bold-and-the-chutzpadik/
        I want to emphasize some things in the blog:
        “Israel is only 1/6 of 1% of the landmass of the Middle East .”
        “Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees per capita in the world.”
        “Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation in the world – by a large margin.”
        “Israel has the largest number of startup companies per capita in the world.”
        “Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies outside of the US and Canada .”
        “Israel was the first country to have a free trade agreement with the United States .”
        “Apart from the Silicon Valley, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world.”

        Both Tonga and Israel have high PhD per capita, but what made them different (Tonga as corrupt, and Israel as success)?
        I would say That Israel have respect for human rights and more freedom, to the point that arabs would want to live these as opposed to their homeland, it is elaborated by frovin further: https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/2174/

        ———-
        Why do i think subsidy is bad?
        Pls refer to : Economics in one lesson
        http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
        Chapters4& 5

  7. zosimus permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    Well, given that he doesn’t want to defend himself from being called as a capitalist swine. Must mean its true.

    Regarding my “being a commie”, by your logic, I am an atheist (which I truly am), but since I think that Catholicism isn’t all that bad (its not all that bad really, its the practitioners), that makes me Catholic? That’s funny. OH SO EFFING FUNNY.

    May sinabi friend ko, trying hard ka magimitate kay Ayn Rand. Before hard copying the contents of Rand, maybe you should consider the CONTEXT that you are going to apply it in. Iba ang konteksto sa Pilipinas kumpara sa konteksto kung saan isinulat ni Rand yang mga libro niya. Itanim mo yan sa kokote mo capitalist swine! Its like you’re saying the people are investing their money for trash, thus disposing their funds. Quality education is not trash, specially for developing countries like the Philippines. If you stand by your definition of slavery, then your “slavery” is required for the country to prosper. May pera ang gobyerno, misallocated lang.

    And what gives you the right to label our profs as “liberal” in your sense of the word? What right do you have to call us liberal if you don’t even understand our stand? Wag ka magsalita kung di mo pa naiintindihan yung stand namin. Gets ko kung bakit gusto niyo ituloy ang budget cut (walang pera gobyerno, sa iba dapat self-sustaining ang education, education should not be a right). Gets niyo ba kung bakit gusto namin pigilan?

    Capitalist swines like you are the threat to THIS country’s freedom. Go apply your individualist principles in countries where it is more appropriate.

    At dahil gusto ko lang sabihin to, capitalist swine ka! :))

    • November 27, 2010 3:38

      and you’re good at imitating Karl Marx and his apostles…

      look at how you argued, it clearly shows that you’re a moron. now that you can’t argue properly, you now resorted to gibberish. heck! you don’t even know the proper concept of rights.

      what do you know about ayn rand? condemning people who support welfare statism or public education system is not imitating ayn rand, idiot. every individual who understands how a free-market works condemns public education.

      do you think you’re not parroting karl marx and his stupid apostle, moron?

      so what if he’s a capitalist swine? i’m a capitalist swine too, if that’s the case. how would you define capitalist swine then? that’s just name-calling. when the blogger calls his opponent idiot, he explains why. of course you can’t because you’re a moron.

      explain to us now why you deserve more education budget and why you have the right to enslave the taxpayers. explain then, you commie parasite!

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        I’m sorry to tell you that I’m not imitating anyone when I argue. I argue with my own style. I’m going to tell you now that I’m no avid reader, but I am an avid listener. Hindi ako yung nagargue like a moron, ikaw ‘tong nag commit ng ad hominem fallacy ako pa naging tanga?

        Uhhh, kung binasa mo yung first two posts ko sana nagets mo kung bakit ko siya nilabel as capitalist swine diba (well, sa first I refered to him as a capitalist fool). Magbasa bago magcomment. Tignan mo nga muna sarili mo bago ka manghusga ng ibang tao. Ikaw nga tong nag name call at nagattack sa arguments ko without justification eh.

        Di ko naman ginawang main point ang “education is a right” ah, in fact I avoided using the word “right”, as I myself have a hard time establishing its meaning. Di kasi ako komportable kumuha ng depinisyon mula sa ibang tao ng ganun-ganun lang. Ginamit ko yung word na right para sa pagdefend ko sa profs namin, in its sense that the blogger does not have knowledge or is not an authority on giving out his assumptions on our profs. As I’ve said, READ before you comment. Who’s the moron between the two of us now?

        My friend is a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities, Ayn Rand is one of them. Its not just the topics that count when we meant he’s imitating Rand:

        “correction the one he’s mimicking has serious criticisms”

        and we’ve talked about how out of context our precious blogger here is. Every idiot who wants a country to prosper knows that accessible education is the key to a better future.Kung iisipin, Capitalism is only good for well-developed countries. Philippines isn’t one of them. More so, the current capitalist system in the Philippines breeds poverty, as the rich are the ones who benefit from such a system. Marami talagang maganda in concept pero fails epicly in practice. One such case is capitalism in the Philippines that is due to mishandling of power and inappropriate application. Nasa Pilipinas kayo, kung magpapaka-capitalist kayo, dun kayo sa mga 1st world countries, wag dito.

        Oh and I just want to add a mockery because I feel like it:

        Capitalist Swine 🙂

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        “I’m sorry to tell you that I’m not imitating anyone when I argue. I argue with my own style.”

        but your style sucks! it still reeks of marxist rhetoric. if you argued according to your own style, then you should have defended your claim that there’s nothing wrong with communism. instead, you resorted to adhominem attack, which clearly shows you’re a mindless prick. by the way, you have no style at all because you’re a moron. you don’t even have a single argument. kindly point out a single argument you made above, moron? is that what you learned from your beloved up?

        “Di ko naman ginawang main point ang “education is a right” ah, in fact I avoided using the word “right”, as I myself have a hard time establishing its meaning.”

        it’s because you’re an ignoramus. may i just remind you of your very first comment on this blog. you said: “Regarding the definition of what a “right” is, please refer to your “Education is not a right” blog. Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it”

        if you’re not a moron, first, you should have presented your “own” definition or “style” of a right. second, you should have pinpointed those “fallacious arguments” of the blogger and presented your own arguments. but evidence shows you provided NOTHING. nil! zero! wah! which means, you’re indeed a moron, a pretentious bragger who thinks he’s good just because he’s from up! am i right, dumbo?

        you said: “Di kasi ako komportable kumuha ng depinisyon mula sa ibang tao ng ganun-ganun lang. Ginamit ko yung word na right para sa pagdefend ko sa profs namin, in its sense that the blogger does not have knowledge or is not an authority on giving out his assumptions on our profs.”

        why? what do you think is the true definition of a “right”. does a “right” mean you are entitled to the property of others? does a “right” mean you are entitled to the earnings or wealth of other people by means law or the use of government force? why? what did your professor say about the definition of a right? did he say that you have a right to free education even if you can’t afford it? did he say that the government must provide every basic necessity you need just because that’s your right?

        tell me, moron. what’s wrong with the definition that the blogger gave? are you saying that the blogger must invent his own definition of a “right” even though there is an established meaning of a right? what is your concept of originality, by the way? does original to you mean we must come up with our own idea no matter how wrong or how mediocre it is? perhaps that’s what your dumbo professors at up taught you!

        you said: “My friend is a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities, Ayn Rand is one of them. Its not just the topics that count when we meant he’s imitating Rand: “correction the one he’s mimicking has serious criticisms””

        so what does your friend possess that you consider him “a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities?” what is that theory of multiple personalities and what makes him an authority of it? did he write a book about it? and how the hell this friend of yours fooled you into believing that what he says is infallible and the whole truth? kindly explain how he came up with the idea that ayn rand has “multiple personalities”? wait! are you nuts?

        and by the way, are you not mimicking him? do you have or does your friend have any standard that can ‘somehow’ tell whether an action is to be considered “mimicking”? that simply shows you’re a stupid moron! lol!

        you said: “and we’ve talked about how out of context our precious blogger here is. Every idiot who wants a country to prosper knows that accessible education is the key to a better future.Kung iisipin, Capitalism is only good for well-developed countries. Philippines isn’t one of them.”

        you know what? what you just said is very, very, very common these days! that’s what my leftist friend said to me when we argued about capitalism. that capitalism is only good for rich countries. that’s what almost all of my economics classmates say! who’s mimicking who then? the blogger explained what’s wrong with communism and why he chose capitalism in more than three dozen articles. you only have to read them if you’re not a moron! what do you have? it’s just a two-liner explanation of what’s wrong with capitalism, which you mimicked from the people around you. so is what you’re saying original? you’re a UP DUMBO indeed. sayang ang pera ng taxpayers sa ‘yo, kid!

        here’s your STUPIDEST comment: “Nasa Pilipinas kayo, kung magpapaka-capitalist kayo, dun kayo sa mga 1st world countries, wag dito.”

        why not? what do you know about capitalism? oh yes! it’s because of your anti-capitalist culture at up! why? what did your friends and professors tell you about capitalism? kindly share some? so capitalism is only for first world countries, and socialism is only for poor countries? if that’s the case, then why should we not adopt capitalism in order for us to be one of them? and by the way? what social system should we adopt then if you dislike capitalism? socialism? and please don’t forget to explain how you understand capitalism because i’m very interested to know whether you know what you’re talking about, communist PARASITE!

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ sozimus,

        and oh, let me emphasize: you’re a COMMUNIST PARASITE! that’s the truth!

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        @ zosims the commie PARASITE,

        aha! i just typed in “vincenton post” on facebook search engine and i found something lol!

        so i think- just my ‘instinct’- your real name is “Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza”. what an ugly name lol! wahahaha! omg!

        here’s the link: http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=vincenton+post&init=quick&tas=0.755098334280774&ref=ts&type=eposts

        what a very moronic conversation you have there… so your friend who’s an authority in detecting multiple personalities is “Paul De Leon”? wahahah! my goodness! that shows you’re a moron! a b.s. (bullshit) mechanical eng’g moron, an expert of that kind? i think your friend has just punked you, kid! wahaha!

        this is epic fail lol!

      • xyxy permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        @aristogeek:

        Now, I don’t think there’s any need for FB-hunting (and making fun of one’s name) or name-calling other people who are not directly involved in this issue.

        @zosimus:
        “Di ko naman ginawang main point ang “education is a right” ah, in fact I avoided using the word “right”, as I myself have a hard time establishing its meaning.”

        I have one question, is education a right?

        a.) Yes. — Why?
        b.) No. — What is it then?
        c.) Not sure. — ???

        I’d like to hear your answer. 🙂

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        ok. let’s give this college bragger the chance to prove he’s not a moron or a brainless prick then…

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        I LOL, sa tingin mo sa facebook kami nagusap tungkol dun? HAHA, siyempre naguusap kami sa real life. Di porket mech eng’g siya e wala na siyang alam, nagcomment lang siya, and that comment is pretty much the summary of his opinions in our discussion. He’s a really reliable source on info.

        di ka talaga marunong magbasa ng may kasamang context noh?
        Sabi ko:
        “My friend is a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities, Ayn Rand is one of them.”

        Pagkakaintindi mo:
        “ayn rand has ‘multiple personalities’?” Don’t you know that “personality” can also pertain to individuals? LOL

        Prejudiced and stereotyping, why do I even bother with you?

        Note lang, I consider you an idiot not because of your arguments (to each their own), but the way you take the arguments points out your stupidity 🙂

        I’m not a commie, I don’t need to completely defend communism being such a good concept. I was just saying that it isn’t evil as you think it is. Social stratification, now that’s not right

        I just lightly grazed through “right”. I didn’t make it a main point 🙂
        Personally nahihirapan ako idefine kung ano exactly ang “right”, kaya ayoko magbigay muna ng definition nun. Sinabi kong di ako komportable kasi nangongolekta pa ako ng impormasyon kung ano nga ba ang ibig sabihin ng “right”, discerning good definitions of the word from the bad.

        … and now I’m reading ad hominem, blah blah…

        Oh, kailangan ba original ang idea para maconsider ito as sound? Bago yun a.

        Hay… Di ka nga nagbabasa, righteous dictatorship nga gusto ko, basa ka ng previous posts ko. In practice, capitalism promotes social stratification, leaving the poor to be poorer and the rich, richer. Kung kakaunti lang sana yung below poverty line, capitalism may be a good idea. Let the country prosper first before going about with capitalism.

        I’m a dictatorial asshole, not a commie parasite (though if the dictatorial system is rightful, then that makes me not an asshole then XD)

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        and i consider you a up moron and a brainless prick because you came here with no enough ammunition. you can’t even explain your understanding of “rights” and defend why you deserve higher education subsidy.

        this is so moronic: “I’m not a commie, I don’t need to completely defend communism being such a good concept.”

        of course many people don’t think they’re commies because they’re idiots! do you think most people in russia were commies before the rise of the bolsheviks? but it is those russian idiots who supported lenin and bolshevism! you get the drift here, idiot?

        you said: “I just lightly grazed through “right”. I didn’t make it a main point 🙂
        Personally nahihirapan ako idefine kung ano exactly ang “right”, kaya ayoko magbigay muna ng definition nun.”

        you said that because you’re a moron. but did you come up with this statement if you don’t even know what a “right” means? your first comment says: “Regarding the definition of what a “right” is, please refer to your “Education is not a right” blog. Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it”

        how did you know that froivin got a lot of “fallacious arguments” if you don’t even know the concept of rights, idiot? so am i not justified to call you idiot, moron or a brainless prick then?

        another stupid comment from you: “Di ka nga nagbabasa, righteous dictatorship nga gusto ko, basa ka ng previous posts ko. ”

        so what the hell is this “righteous dictatorship”, idiot? just like hugo chavez’s dictatorship that provides everything his people need? just like north korea’s kim jong il’s dictatorship that provides the needs of his people? or just like sweden’s? define! that’s the rule here, brainless prick!

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        may i add…

        Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza’s “righteous dictatorship” is a product of utter stupidity and brainlessness! i don’t think i’d be accused of name-calling by calling him “brainless prick” or “idiot” with that kind of so sick, so disgusting statement.

        so according to his system of “righteous dictatorship”, there will be no “rights” or let say, minimal rights, simply because he doesn’t even know the definition of “rights”. are we breeding, subsidizing mindless future commies or statists?!

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        okay may typo post ko. Equality is not such a bad concept haha. Antok na ko, paulit-ulit ka kasi, kailangan pa ispoon feed para makagets :p

    • zosimus permalink
      November 27, 2010 3:38

      @XYXY – Honestly, I’m not sure. As I’ve said, wala pa akong clearcut definition of what a “right” is. It is a right in the sense of the word that everyone should be given a chance to be educated without restrictions like that of socio-economic status. But to a certain extent, it can also be considered to be privilege, in the sense that only those deserving, not necessarily because of socio-economic status, but more on capacity, should be given education. The latter is more applicable to tertiary education, subsidized dapat ang deserving, yung hindi as deserving should find other ways to become educated in the tertiary level, like dishing out large amounts of money. Currently nga diba, yung education that is cheap but of better quality (UP) costs more than the cheap but of good quality (PUP, sorry guys, school pride :p), masmahirap pumasok sa better quality, pero may standards parin dun sa good quality.

      Guess its both a right and a privilege. Basic lang ang definition ko ng right and privilege, I know :p

      @aristogeel – wala naman akong sinabi na nagsusupport sa pagsabi mo na isa akong college bragger :3

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        here’s what i wrote above zosimus the dictator commie:

        Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza’s “righteous dictatorship” is a product of utter stupidity and brainlessness! i don’t think i’d be accused of name-calling by calling him “brainless prick” or “idiot” with that kind of so sick, so disgusting statement.

        so according to his system of “righteous dictatorship”, there will be no “rights” or let say, minimal rights, simply because he doesn’t even know the definition of “rights”. are we breeding, subsidizing mindless future commies or statists?!

        Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza’s “righteous dictatorship” is a product of utter stupidity and brainlessness! i don’t think i’d be accused of name-calling by calling him “brainless prick” or “idiot” with that kind of so sick, so disgusting statement.

        so according to his system of “righteous dictatorship”, there will be no “rights” or let say, minimal rights, simply because he doesn’t even know the definition of “rights”. are we breeding, subsidizing mindless future commies or statists?!

        now you said: “Honestly, I’m not sure. As I’ve said, wala pa akong clearcut definition of what a “right” is. It is a right in the sense of the word that everyone should be given a chance to be educated without restrictions like that of socio-economic status. But to a certain extent, it can also be considered to be privilege, in the sense that only those deserving, not necessarily because of socio-economic status, but more on capacity, should be given education.”

        so in that case, since you’re clearly a ‘up moron’, kindly explain how you came up with your very first comment: “Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it”?

        you really don’t know what you’re talking about. is that the kind of people we’re subsidizing with our taxes?

        you said: “wala naman akong sinabi na nagsusupport sa pagsabi mo na isa akong college bragger :3”

        of course you are! read your very first comment! hindi mo alam kasi bobo ka! when you tell someone na “fallacious ang arguments mo, exaggerated and everything” it’s as if you’re claiming that you’re better than him! what’s worse is, hindi mo pala alam ang pinagsasabi mo, bopols! so anong ibig sabihin nun? bopols ka or tanga lang or nagmamayabang. when you put up a condescending comment on other people’s work or argument, you must be very ready to say why! explain why you came up with that condescending comment! dahil wala kang explanation, maliwanag pa sa araw bukas na bobo ka nga at nagmamagaling. a bragger indeed!

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        nagdefine ba ako ng sarili kong meaning of what is a “right”? Hindi diba? Inaamin ko kulang ako sa ammunition. Pero bakit ako gagamit ng baril na yun kung di naman siya necessary sa aking strategy? Nagbasa lang ako, may nagargue na ibang tao, nagargue din siya. Pero as I’ve said, di ko naman yun ginamit as a main point.

        Do I have to be a commie in order to appreciate the idea? Oo, gusto ko pumantay yung social imbalance (rich pwning the poor), pero dapat may governance parin, may ruling class parin. A ruling class that would watch over the society. Its not about giving what the people need, but using your resources to let the society prosper. You will still step on some people, but its for the greater good of the community, then its a step that we should take. Pero siyempre hindi mo sila aapakan ng nakangiti, righteous nga eh.

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Pointing out fallacies does not make you a braggart

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        sabi ni Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza: “nagdefine ba ako ng sarili kong meaning of what is a “right”?” Hindi diba? Inaamin ko kulang ako sa ammunition. Pero bakit ako gagamit ng baril na yun kung di naman siya necessary sa aking strategy? Nagbasa lang ako, may nagargue na ibang tao, nagargue din siya. Pero as I’ve said, di ko naman yun ginamit as a main point.”

        bopols talaga. but is that not a total contradiction of your very first comment. i-re-post ko lang para matauhan ka!

        sabi mo:

        First off, communism and socialism isn’t such a bad concept. Sana alamin mo muna kung ano yung ibig sabihin nun before labelling them as evil. Basa ka pa at pagaralan mo pa ha okay?

        Regarding the definition of what a “right” is, please refer to your “Education is not a right” blog. Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it

        until now, you don’t have any explanation why “communism and socialism isn’t such a bad concept”. puro ka kabobohan at katangahan.

        sabi mo pa:

        Basa ka pa at pagaralan mo pa ha okay?

        is that now a bragger’s attitude? ano bang nabasa at napag-aralan mo tungkol sa communism at socialism? kindly lecture us?

        paki-explain din ‘to:

        ” Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it”

        paki-indentify yung mga fallaciousness na arguments at iba pa, kung hindi ka bobo.

        at nasan na yung explanation mo sa kabobohan mong konsepto na

        “righteous dictatorship”

        kasi hindi ko alam kung anong ibig sabihin nito. baka bagong theory yan sa up diliman lol!

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        uo bopols, sagutin mo muna ung nasa taas bago ito.

        sabi mo naman bopols:

        Pointing out fallacies does not make you a braggart

        eh nasan nga yung mga fallacies? at pano mo malalaman ung mga fallacies kung ikaw mismo inamin mo na hindi mo alam ang definition ng “rights”! bopols ka talaga! sabihin mo!

        at wag mo kaligtaan na naman yung mga tanong ko sa taas. kasi PURO KA IWAS…. DAHIL NGA BOPOLS ka!

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Kulit mo rin eh noh. Kailangan ko ba ng sarili kong definition ng “right” para sabihin “these guys pointed out some things about what you said”?

        EQUALITY is not such a good concept which is what is strived for in communism and socialism. Thus not making it evil. Kaya ko sinabi na “basa ka pa” eh kasi EVIL agad para sa kaniya ang communism and socialism.

        “Do I have to be a commie in order to appreciate the idea? Oo, gusto ko pumantay yung social imbalance (rich pwning the poor), pero dapat may governance parin, may ruling class parin. A ruling class that would watch over the society. Its not about giving what the people need, but using your resources to let the society prosper. You will still step on some people, but its for the greater good of the community, then its a step that we should take. Pero siyempre hindi mo sila aapakan ng nakangiti, righteous nga eh.”

        di mo ba kaya maghanap ng context clues?

      • zosimus permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        okay may type post ko. Equality is not such a bad concept haha. Antok na ko, paulit-ulit ka kasi, kailangan pa ispoon feed para makagets :p

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        nabaliw ka na ata. hindi ka lang bobo, nabaliw ka na.

        “EQUALITY is not such a good concept which is what is strived for in communism and socialism. Thus not making it evil. Kaya ko sinabi na “basa ka pa” eh kasi EVIL agad para sa kaniya ang communism and socialism.”

        so you believe that communism is not evil? kasi bobo ka. eh anong nabasa mo? anong explanation mo? kung hindi mo ma-explain ung first statement mo, eh di maliwanag na BRAGGART ka at IDIOT! ganun lang yun. paano mo malalaman na fallacious ang argument ng blogger kung hindi mo nga alam ang definition ng “rights” at hindi mo alam na EVIL ang communism. communism is evil per se, IDIOT!

        now tell me, ano yung concept mo ng “righteous dictatorship” kasi sa tingin ko, kapareha lang yan ng socialism or communism, idiot!

        lahat na ng pinagsasabi mo puro kabaliwan. yan ang utak ng BOPOLS! isa kang kahihiyan sa UP. ay! mali ata kasi maraming students na ganyan ang utak sa up diliman lol!

      • zosimus permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        -“I’m sorry to tell you that I’m not imitating anyone when I argue. I argue with my own style.”
        but your style sucks! it still reeks of marxist rhetoric. if you argued according to your own style, then you should have defended your claim that there’s nothing wrong with communism. instead, you resorted to adhominem attack, which clearly shows you’re a mindless prick. by the way, you have no style at all because you’re a moron. you don’t even have a single argument. kindly point out a single argument you made above, moron? is that what you learned from your beloved up?
        .Magkaiba ang style sa content. Ikaw nga tong puro ad hominem lang alam 🙂

        -“Di ko naman ginawang main point ang “education is a right” ah, in fact I avoided using the word “right”, as I myself have a hard time establishing its meaning.”
        it’s because you’re an ignoramus. may i just remind you of your very first comment on this blog. you said: “Regarding the definition of what a “right” is, please refer to your “Education is not a right” blog. Andaming arguments dun about the fallacious-ness of your definitions of it”
        .Natandaan mo message ko? Bakit di ka na nakapagreply dun (one)? Remind kita:
        “Hay. Yan ka nanaman. As I’ve said, di ko na kailangan iexplain yun kasi pinoint out ko lang na may ibang arguments against frovinber’s definition of what is a right. Ikaw lang tong balik ng balik dun.”
        Hindi ko kailangan magkaron ng sariling definition of a term to say these guys said something about your arguments. Then you went silent on that, not even attacking me. Weird (two)

        -here’s your STUPIDEST comment: “Nasa Pilipinas kayo, kung magpapaka-capitalist kayo, dun kayo sa mga 1st world countries, wag dito.”
        why not? what do you know about capitalism? oh yes! it’s because of your anti-capitalist culture at up! why? what did your friends and professors tell you about capitalism? kindly share some? so capitalism is only for first world countries, and socialism is only for poor countries? if that’s the case, then why should we not adopt capitalism in order for us to be one of them? and by the way? what social system should we adopt then if you dislike capitalism? socialism? and please don’t forget to explain how you understand capitalism because i’m very interested to know whether you know what you’re talking about, communist PARASITE!
        .And I replied
        Hay… Di ka nga nagbabasa, righteous dictatorship nga gusto ko, basa ka ng previous posts ko. In practice, capitalism promotes social stratification, leaving the poor to be poorer and the rich, richer. Kung kakaunti lang sana yung below poverty line, capitalism may be a good idea. Let the country prosper first before going about with capitalism.
        Pretty much pointed out what, then you went silent on my view of capitalism (three), instead you attacked what I meant by “Righteous Dictatorship” for the Philippines, which can easily be defined (and you apparently cannot comprehend) as a dictatorship ruled righteously, where the dictator aims for the society’s prosperity.
        -my golly! you really are insane! where did you get that bullshit?
        .Just to answer your question, that bullshit came from me. I have a mind of my own; I don’t need to adapt any other person’s stand. If you think its stupid then so be it. To each their own eh? 🙂

        -you said: “My friend is a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities, Ayn Rand is one of them. Its not just the topics that count when we meant he’s imitating Rand: “correction the one he’s mimicking has serious criticisms””
        so what does your friend possess that you consider him “a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities?” what is that theory of multiple personalities and what makes him an authority of it? did he write a book about it? and how the hell this friend of yours fooled you into believing that what he says is infallible and the whole truth? kindly explain how he came up with the idea that ayn rand has “multiple personalities”? wait! are you nuts?
        .And I replied
        I LOL, sa tingin mo sa facebook kami nagusap tungkol dun? HAHA, siyempre naguusap kami sa real life. Di porket mech eng’g siya e wala na siyang alam, nagcomment lang siya, and that comment is pretty much the summary of his opinions in our discussion. He’s a really reliable source on info.
        di ka talaga marunong magbasa ng may kasamang context noh?
        Sabi ko:
        “My friend is a good authority when it comes to theories of multiple personalities, Ayn Rand is one of them.”
        Pagkakaintindi mo:
        “ayn rand has ‘multiple personalities’?” Don’t you know that “personality” can also pertain to individuals? LOL
        And you went silent on that (four. Natatawa pa rin ako actually :))
        -you said: “and we’ve talked about how out of context our precious blogger here is. Every idiot who wants a country to prosper knows that accessible education is the key to a better future.Kung iisipin, Capitalism is only good for well-developed countries. Philippines isn’t one of them.”
        you know what? what you just said is very, very, very common these days! that’s what my leftist friend said to me when we argued about capitalism. that capitalism is only good for rich countries. that’s what almost all of my economics classmates say! who’s mimicking who then? the blogger explained what’s wrong with communism and why he chose capitalism in more than three dozen articles. you only have to read them if you’re not a moron! what do you have? it’s just a two-liner explanation of what’s wrong with capitalism, which you mimicked from the people around you. so is what you’re saying original? you’re a UP DUMBO indeed. sayang ang pera ng taxpayers sa ‘yo, kid!
        And I replied
        Oh, kailangan ba original ang idea para maconsider ito as sound? Bago yun a.
        And you went silent (five)

        You continued to attack my lack of definition of what is a “right”, stating in your blog entry that:
        But instead of responding to my comments, he resorted to evasion. Why? Perhaps that’s what he learned from UP and because he’s a total idiotic prick! Here’s what he said:
        Then I talked about my lack of definition. Is admitting that I can’t define the said word stupid? Is it evasion? I faced the issue head on. I have guts to say that I am faulty. Its not evasion, but an act of courage. Even after pointing it out repeatedly that the definition of the word is not relevant for my arguments, you continued attacking it, probably seeing it as an opening against me. But abandoned my post there, not seeing it as a tactical position. Well, di ka na nga nagreply on that one sa facebook, nagets mo na ba kung bakit?

        Eto na analysis ko sa last post mo sa blog ni froinviber
        -nabaliw ka na ata. hindi ka lang bobo, nabaliw ka na.
        .Ad hominem
        -“EQUALITY is not such a good concept which is what is strived for in communism and socialism. Thus not making it evil. Kaya ko sinabi na “basa ka pa” eh kasi EVIL agad para sa kaniya ang communism and socialism.”
        so you believe that communism is not evil? kasi bobo ka. eh anong nabasa mo? anong explanation mo? kung hindi mo ma-explain ung first statement mo, eh di maliwanag na BRAGGART ka at IDIOT! ganun lang yun. paano mo malalaman na fallacious ang argument ng blogger kung hindi mo nga alam ang definition ng “rights” at hindi mo alam na EVIL ang communism. communism is evil per se, IDIOT!
        Ad hominem, na explain ko na yung irrelevance of defining the word “right” in pointing out that other people explained the fallaciousness of froinviber’s definition of the word. Di mo properly explained kung bakit evil ang communism, at least ako napakita ko na its not evil because I pointed out that it strives for equality, a good concept.

        And I rest my case 🙂

        “Wisest is he who knows he does not know”
        -Socrates

  8. Octave Mouret permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:38

    I find this article interesting, that is, rhetorically pleasant and seemingly witty. Two thumbs up for that. Just keep writing; speak up your mind, be lauded and be criticised 😉

    Anyway, I just noticed this not-so-relevant detail in the first paragraph’s quotation. I just wanna make a correction for that friend of yours who, as you say, is an “agnostic Libertarian”.

    It says, “… I also say… the same thing with those students who stormed UK’s Parliament”. Yes, it is true that some British students, around 50,000 of them, stormed a concrete establishment, which happened last 10 November. But it was not the Houses of Parliament that they stormed. Rather it was the headquarters of the UK’s Conservative party at 30 Millbank. Although a few metres away from the Houses of Parliament, this Tory Headquarters is apparently not the “UK Parliament” itself. Hence, your friend is really committing a big factual error.

    Please tell that to your friend. That is only what I ask, though it may seem so irrelevant. Thank you.

    • November 27, 2010 3:38

      @Octave,

      My friend posted this reply on Facebook:

      I wasn’t committing a factual error when I casually wrote above that students stormed UK’s Parliament. Y…es, they made a riot last November 10 at the Tory Headquarters. I wasn’t referring to that.

      But it cannot be denied that these student protesters also attempted to storm and enter Parliament last Wednesday, November 24. That’s what I was referring. They were not able to enter the building, but they clashed violently with riot police leading to many arrests.

      http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/15665b944045da4a/id/711597/cs/1/

      http://www.demotix.com/news/517280/thousands-students-protest-whitehall-and-trafalgar-square

      http://pictures.metro.co.uk/lonstudentprotests2411/517910/Increase-in-tuition-feesSee More

      • Octave Mouret permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Quoting your friend, “But it cannot be denied that these student protesters also attempted to storm and enter Parliament last Wednesday, November 24. That’s what I was referring. They were not able to enter the building, but they clashed violently with riot police leading to many arrests.”

        I think he still commits a factual error here due to a mismatch in linguistic expression. He stated above that the British students “attempted” to storm and to enter the Parliament. The action “attempt” does not necessarily mean that that which it tends to support is fulfilled. Therefore, these students did not really “storm” the Parliament last 24 November but rather only “attempted”.

        With all due respect citizens, I think there is a difference between the potentiality and the actuality of a particular occurrence, which in this case is the “24 November even”t in the Westminster area. The “storming of the Parliament” as what your friend stated above as a reply to my comment simply implies that it was a “potentiality”. Your friend should have stated the action as plain as “attempted to storm” rather than “stormed” for the simple purpose of clarity. Well, what I tend to mean with the “Parliament” here is the concrete buildings themselves sans the immediate surroundings and the nearby areas or blocks. If he was trying to refer to the neighbourhood around the Parliament rather than the Parliament as concrete building itself, then s/he should have done so.

        I don’t think if such a remark on linguistic expression will be appreciated by your friend but I think it makes a lot of difference for the projection/relay of facts; “stormed UK’s Parliament” as against “”attempted to storm UK’s Parliament”. These are facts, that is, things which must not be tampered by whatsoever interpretation or will; unless we are just trying to stir up particular interests here by modifying raw information.

        Thank you for bothering to read this and please be careful in relaying the details or information that you want the public to know.

  9. tadus permalink
    November 27, 2010 3:38

    The notion that not everyone is entitled to universal education is outrageous and a clear example of myopic mentality. Look at all leading democratic and “capitalistic” countries, they all have pronounced state supported universities and colleges. Sizable number of leading universities in the US are SUC’s (OSU, Univ of Michigan, Penn State, UCLA, Berkeley, etc). Even their education system is set up so that students that have the potential to contribute something significant to society must not be burden by financial restrictions (look at student loans, PEL Grant, etc). In a nutshell, a country that fails to account everyone’s potential (including poor but deserving students) narrows its chance of attaining sustainable progress and development.

  10. November 27, 2010 3:38

    To all my passionate commenters:

    If you wish to know why I post my latest anti-public education polemic, all you need to do is check my previous related posts (especially the ones I included here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/stupidityup/ ). I have already tackled all your concerns and questions in the past.

    Other related posts:

    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/what-if-they-went-on-strike/

    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/education/

  11. November 27, 2010 3:38
  12. November 27, 2010 3:38

    http://aristogeek.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/arguing-with-a-up-moron-named-jullian-zosimus-banares-carranza/

  13. November 27, 2010 3:38

    @ eggggggg,

    “You people keep insisting on your own definition of what a right is, while the rest of the world adheres to the more general definition, which includes “something to which one has a just claim,” or “something that one may properly claim as due.”

    so what is UP’s or your definition of rights?

    “the rest of the world adheres to the more general definition, which includes “something to which one has a just claim,” or “something that one may properly claim as due.”

    this is a plain gibberish! kindly state very clearly what’s the “general definition” of rights? and kindly clarify the following:

    1. what constitutes “something to which one has a just claim”? can you have just claim on something that is owned by others? and why did you call it “just claim”? what makes it “just”?

    2. what constitutes “something that one may properly claim as due”?

    there are alien to me. please enlighten me on this gibberish.

    • November 27, 2010 3:38

      egggg said: ““the rest of the world adheres to the more general definition, which includes “something to which one has a just claim,” or “something that one may properly claim as due.”

      I find this statement very confusing, or mediocre at best. This is the most nihilistic, out-of-this-world definition of “rights” I’ve ever seen. Based on his definition, “rights” can be anything. Perhaps a person has a right or is entitled to the property or wealth of another individual. I don’t know how he defines “just claim” or “properly claim as due.”

      Under the law, just claim exists when a person has an obligation or legally bound to deliver a thing or perform a service or deed to another person who has just claim. Here, such a right is EARNED. There can be no right that is UNEARNED.

      Here’s a definition of rights according to the Stanford University:

      Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.

      “Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.”

      “This entry begins by describing the nature of rights: their classification, their composition, and their function. It then reviews the history of the language of rights, and various relationships between rights and reasons. The major contemporary philosophical approaches to the justification of rights are compared, and the entry concludes by surveying criticisms of rights and “rights talk.” The focus throughout is on general theoretical issues instead of on the analysis or justification of specific rights.”

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        @Legal Expert

        In the scenario I gave, the State is legally bound by the Constitution to provide quality and attainable education to its citizens.

        In such a case, the right is earned by becoming a citizen of the State in the same way that I cannot demand that the American government provide me education, or a citizen of India cannot demand to be provided education by the Philippine government.

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Also, I believe that taxation is not the unjust taking of one’s belongings by the State, because by becoming a citizen of a country, you subject yourself to its laws, which include taxation.

        You agreed to the taxes set by the State by becoming a citizen of that State and accepting its laws, therefore, the State may properly claim a percentage of your income. If you feel otherwise, well, you have the right to leave the country for a more suitable place and change your citizenship.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        “In the scenario I gave, the State is legally bound by the Constitution to provide quality and attainable education to its citizens.”

        Don’t you get it? The Constitution is a DEPRAVITY! That’s the reason why this country is poor and won’t progress! It’s because of the Constitution!

        OK. Granting arguendo that your argument makes sense, that simply means that everybody is also LEGALLY BOUND to contributed money to a common pool in order for the state “to provide quality and attainable education to its citizens”. We’re already bankrupt because of that notion. Because the more services the government serves, the more taxes it should get from the people. But the government in recent years was afraid to levy more and higher taxes, so it resorted to debt monetization and borrowing money from foreign creditors. That’s why we now have high budget deficit and high foreign debt.

        Why did this happen? It’s because of that DEPRAVED constitution. It must be changed before we all perish in a state of chronic bankruptcy. I know you won’t easily get this because of the kind of education you receive at UP.

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        Clearly, we’ll never agree on this because we just believe in very, very different things. So why fight over it?

        If you believe the Constitution is a depravity, then take it up with the lawmakers. There’s no point in picking fights by posting inflammatory comments on a news report about a budget cut strike, like the owner of this blog did, because these people have already formed their own sets of beliefs on what is right, and are taking them up with the government in a bid to change things.

        Granted, Zosimus may have started the arguments on this blog by commenting here, but how do you think he got here in the first place?

        Also, one cannot ever completely be sure in saying that the current system is to blame for the situation we’re in right now because there are simply way too many factors at play in any given time to conclude that. Executed properly, and with a little bit of luck, this system can be successful, too. The same goes for the system that you want in place. It can fail, too, given improper execution, among other factors. There is no single fool-proof system to follow, so let’s just leave it at that and stop trying to shove our beliefs down each other’s throats, and take action, instead.

        Again, if you think there’s anything wrong with the Constitution, then take it up with the government, not with a bunch of people who are already fighting for a different thing altogether.

        Oh, and I hope that last sentence isn’t an underhanded statement against my school, because I’d like to think that people are defined by more than just their education. UP may produce activists, but it produces more neutral folks as well. UP may also produce communists, and what may seem to you like communists, but I assure you, it can produce capitalists, as well.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        This is what most people don’t get. Yes, there is the Constitution, but the question is, is it leading us to both economic and political disaster? You tend to forget that the Constitution was created by men who were not infallible. But the thing is, there is such a thing as right and wrong, moral and immoral, practical and impractical.

        Even the Nazis believed that their constitution was moral and superior to other constitutions. But what did their constitution and their leaders lead them to? It led them to war and disaster. The Soviets believed their communist charter was perfect and great. But what did it lead them to? The collapse of the USSR, famine and starvation. It also led to to war and invasion of neighboring countries. The constitution of Venezuela mandates that it is OK or proper to take away the property and businesses of private individuals and foreigners. Now Venezuela is collapsing politically and economically.

        The point of this discussion, as I see it, is that it attacks the system. It does not uphold or recognize the system or the depraved constitution. That’s why e have revision or amendment. Most legal experts believe the charter must be revised according to the proper concept of rights. We cannot survive under this populist system for long. We will all suffer in the end. Reality is our only final arbiter whether the Constitution you’re glorifying really works or not. Reality tells us that it does NOT work. And it’s leading our country to disaster…

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        What I’m saying is, if you really do think the Constitution is leading us to ruin, then you’re barking up the wrong tree, because not only am I not in the position to make amendments to the Constitution, I also firmly believe otherwise.

        True, the people who drafted the Constitution were not infallible, but neither were John Locke and company. If you believe the current system is far from flawless, then I agree with you. But neither is Capitalism.

        You think the current system is leading us to ruin, then okay. I, on the other hand, believe that the system, though admittedly flawed, is not solely to blame, and think that put in the exact same conditions we’re in now, Capitalism would fail as well.

        To each his own.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        I’m sorry but let me reiterate that what you said above is NOT the proper concept of rights. These are the fundamental source of rights: the right to Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of Happiness.

        That’s the thing we borrowed from the American Constitution which has worked so far. However, our framers added alleged rights, such as the right to education, health care etc. You right to life means you are entitled to act and earn your own living. Your right to property means you’re entitled to the fruits of your land or property. This means that you have all the means and rights to ensure your own survival. You have the right to send yourself to school, to undergo medical operation, buy a house, etc.

        But when the government comes in and provide the education and health care of others, then it has to take some money from other people through taxation. Taxation should only be limited to the protection of individual rights- for courts, police and military.

        Your concept of right means the government must take away the property or others and then redistribute it. That gives the state the right to redistribute wealth.

        You said: “What I’m saying is, if you really do think the Constitution is leading us to ruin, then you’re barking up the wrong tree, because not only am I not in the position to make amendments to the Constitution, I also firmly believe otherwise.”

        No I’m not. This is about informing the people about changing the system. But I believe the blogger is right! These people from UP don’t understand it. And this is the case here. The point of the blogger is: too much spending is bad, big government is bad, this country needs limited government and lower taxes. That’s the point. And that this country cannot go on with the current set up. What’s worse is that there are educated people from UP who just can’t see the problem and what’s goin’ on around them.

        The very reason for this “intellectual bankruptcy”, as the blogger calls it, is the people’s lack of understanding and ignorance of the proper concept of rights. And this is what this blog proved!

      • Eggg permalink
        November 27, 2010 3:38

        The point of the matter is, the Constitution uses the word “right” in a different manner than you would. Does this mean that this usage is incorrect? Only by your definition. You don’t believe in it, but others do. You can say they’re wrong, but they can say the same about you, and at the end of the day, we’re back to square one, because there is no absolute authority on rights in this world.

        The fact is, however which way you phrase it, the government is bound by the Constitution to provide quality and attainable education. And we’re going to hold them accountable for that, whether you agree with the Constitution’s usage of the word “right” or not. The framers might have been stupid, or they might have not, none of use can ever say for certain because IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION.

        Inform the people all you want, but don’t expect everyone to accept everything you say. People should be able to choose what to believe without having opinions shoved down their throats and being judged for believing otherwise.

        And it’s not THE proper concept of rights, it’s just YOUR concept of rights.

    • Eggg permalink
      November 27, 2010 3:38

      @aristogeek

      I’ve stated my definition of rights above, and you’ve quoted it. It’s “something to which one has a just claim,” or “something that one may properly claim as due,” and it also happens to be the general definition I’m referring to.

      No, you can’t have just claim over something that is owned by others unless you can prove otherwise, or unless it has been promised to you. Something is just when it is in the interests of fairness and the truth.

      One may properly claim something as due if one can prove that it belongs to him, if one can prove that it should rightfully be given to him, or if it has been promised to him.

      To apply it to the issue at hand, first, the government sets taxes. Citizens then pay the government, hence the money is no longer theirs, it is the State’s. Since the State abides by the Constitution, and since the Constitution says that all the State’s citizens have the right to have quality education at all levels, the citizens therefore may properly claim education as due to them.

      • November 27, 2010 3:38

        “No, you can’t have just claim over something that is owned by others unless you can prove otherwise, or unless it has been promised to you. Something is just when it is in the interests of fairness and the truth.”

        Let me comment on this.

        Don’t you know that your argument above- that “the State is legally bound by the Constitution to provide quality and attainable education to its citizens”- indirectly means that we are legally bound to serve each other, because what the government does is that it takes away the taxes of the taxpayers in order to pay for the education of some portion of our society. But not everybody pays income taxes! We have upped the amount of exemption under the term of Mrs. Arroyo, which means more people won’t be paying their income taxes, while less people will be paying theirs.

        “Since the State abides by the Constitution, and since the Constitution says that all the State’s citizens have the right to have quality education at all levels, the citizens therefore may properly claim education as due to them.”

        This is exactly a monstrous fantasy that bankrupted several states and is now bankrupting wealthy nations like Sweden, France, Great Britain, Greece and even the U.S. We are enslaved to everybody- that’s what the Constitution and your understanding of it imply. How long can we survive with that kind of mentality and system? We’re not as rich as Sweden, but the Swedish government admitted that their Welfare State has failed. What will happen to us then? Well, let’s blame the collective idiocy of some educated people here when that time comes. Actually, that time is now! One only has to look at economic indicators! PNoy is now panicking! That’s very obvious. But he can’t borrow more debts. He can’t even raise our taxes. That would make him unpopular. He and this country is cornered.

  14. up student permalink
    November 28, 2010 3:38

    The Constitution of Philippines Adopted 15 October 1986, amended 1987

    EDUCATION

    Section 1

    The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.

    The Constitution clearly states that quality education is a right. By cutting the UP buget, which may lead to the raising of tuition fees, quality education will not be accessible to thousands of students who cannot afford these raised fees.

    • The guy with the vampire box avatar permalink
      November 28, 2010 3:38

      It’s definitely a right. These people here just don’t know how to interpret laws.

      Our constitution is the most basic law of the land. It is “what is ought to be” and not merely “what is”. If the people above me don’t agree with it, they should just leave the country and go to where there is no public schools. (oopss! Wait! Such a country doesn’t exist!)

  15. PEOPLE! TAKE DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS! permalink
    November 28, 2010 3:38

    Education is a very crucial element in development. Unfortunately for our country, the people are very poor that most of them cannot afford to bring their children to school.

    You don’t know how subsidized education helps the poor because you don’t work for your tuition fees! (It’s obvious. You could waste your time here arguing on ideologies and concepts of rights) Tertiary education is important in the modern world’s labor market. Just imagine! Just 4% of a generation finishing college! You don’t need to wonder why the Philippine society is so unequal.

    The access to education is a right that must not be violated. We all pay taxes, don’t we? THE EVAT IN EVERY GOOD!

    Not only is it a right, its provision is a DUTY of the state! All other countries are allocating more budget to their education because of their growing population. But look at us! We’re cutting it down! In the event that tuition fees rise, I won’t be surprised if some of the students would stop studying. The cost of education not only includes tuition but also school requirements, transportation, food, and housing. This cut on the budget would inevitably lead to a rise in tuition fees.

    The hardships of some students who work part-time on fast food chains or call centers would be aggravated.

  16. Cartoon Network permalink
    November 28, 2010 3:38

    hindi na ako makikipag-argue.

    ang panget ng arguments ng supporters ng author.

    nung sinabing right ang access sa education, inargue ang definition ng rights…
    nung sinabing exlicit ang pagkakasabi sa constitution na right ang education, sinabing mali ang constitution..

    alam naman natin ang ganitong klase ng reasoning.. reasoning ito ng close-minded person…

    for the people who have come across this blog:
    don’t waste your effort on them. they’re not worth it. walang mangyayari…

    hayaan niyo silang mabuksan ang isipan sa katotohanang kailangang paaralin ng gobyerno ang walang alam…

    parang kalsada kasi ang education..

    bakit ba gobyerno ang gumagawa ng kalsada?

  17. Legal Expert permalink
    November 28, 2010 3:38

    @ What made you think that subsidy is bad?

    I’d like to ask you this: How much money do you, people, need?

    Here’s my observation. The only strongest argument you have in this debate is appeal to emotion. Your ability to appeal to human emotion is really outstanding. You ask so many things like: “how about the poor?” “How about the future kids, etc.”

    Let me tell you that we all disagree with the policies of PNoy. You disagree with his cutting the budgets on education, transportation, welfare, etc.

    On my part, I disagree with his policies because:

    a. He should have cut more budgets on more services and the cut should be a lot higher- up to 30 to 40 percent if possible.

    b. He should cut taxes as well by half if necessary.

    3. He should sell redundant and incompetent GOCCs and other government functionaries, particularly PAGCOR, our water utilities, etc.

    4. He should offer tax credits to working students and parents. I observed that it was suggested by Froivinber above https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/cut-the-education-budget/#comment-6086

    5. He should start repealing interventionist laws and amending laws like the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 among others in order to attract more foreign investors.

    So this means the policy must be a holistic process. The government has to cut spending by 30 to 40 percent but it has to lower taxes and offer tax credits to working students and parents. Also, lower taxes and less regulatory government are attractive to both domestic and foreign investors. The government must secure that doing business in RP is easy, safe and business-friendly. Under this business-friendly policy, the more investments in generates, the more jobs will be offered to the people. Thus, employed parents would be able to send their kids to school as they only pay lower taxes and are entitled to tax credits.

    • November 28, 2010 3:38

      Well well well… If Noy Noy thinks like you, he wouldn’t expand the budget for the conditional cash transfer.. The education budget was fine before. No one was complaining even if the rooms were crowded and the teachers were suffering very low pay. The cut is very inappropriate.

      This isn’t really an appeal to emotion. It is a question. How about the children who can’t afford private school education? You can’t just disregard them.

      If you want to have an additional source of funds, then cut the pork barrel! Gosh! Every congressman receives 200 million a year.

      • Legal Expert permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        @ voiceofthesouth

        I ask you to read my post again. Let me make it clear for you if you don’t get it.

        I said YES to budget cut, but I said it should have been HIGHER, up to 30 to 40 percent if necessary. Why?

        Here’s the reason. Let’s give justice to the word “SCHOLARSHIP” by only offering education grants to poor but deserving students.

        So let say the government cut the education budget on tertiary level by 40 percent, what will happen to the remaining 70 percent? It will be offered to TRUE SCHOLARS, meaning competent and bright students.

        Now what will happen to people who have kids to send to school?

        I said, the government must cut taxes by half, if necessary. The state imposes 32 percent income tax. Just imagine if you only pay half of it, or 15%. This means that you save a lot for the education of your kids in just ONE YEAR!

        Apart from that, you are also entitled to TAX CREDITS in education. Which means there would be deduction in the amount of your tax because you shoulder your own education or that of your children or some other beneficiaries.

        This means, you don’t have to rely on the government.

        Therefore, less taxes and tax credits are the best solution to the problem.

      • November 28, 2010 3:38

        If your income is just 15,000 per month because you’re just a janitor, you can’t send your children to private schools that costs 40,000 per semester even if the government didn’t impose income taxes. That’s why you need public school education.

        Put yourself in their shoes and think about the budget.

      • November 28, 2010 3:38

        If your income is just 15,000 per month because you’re just a janitor (you didn’t finish college), you can’t send your children to private schools that costs 40,000 per semester even if the government didn’t impose income taxes. That’s why you need public school education.

        Put yourself in their shoes and think about the budget.

        You also have to think that the uneducated will end up like this janitor. It is an inevitable cycle that can only be solved by the public school system.

      • Legal Expert permalink
        November 28, 2010 3:38

        @ Voice of the South

        Oh now I get your point…

        You said: “If your income is just 15,000 per month because you’re just a janitor (you didn’t finish college), you can’t send your children to private schools that costs 40,000 per semester even if the government didn’t impose income taxes. That’s why you need public school education.”

        But, honestly, can’t your see some contradictions in your statement? Now what do I mean by contradictions. Here let me explain.

        You have so much emotion and compassion for the janitor who earns P15,000 per month who didn’t finish college just because he couldn’t send his children to private schools.

        But the question is, is this janitor obliged under our internal revenue law to pay his INCOME TAXES? Since he earns a monthly salary of P15,000, under the law this janitor is NOT obliged to pay his income taxes.

        However, a call center agent, a mother, who earns P35,000 per month is obliged by law to pay her income taxes just because she earns more compared to the janitor.

        Don’t you see injustice here? You FEEL COMPASSION for the janitor who’s not obliged to pay income taxes, but you say nothing to the mother who regularly pays for her income taxes.

        So here it is, you’ve illustrated how the government robs Juan of his money in order to give it to Pedro.

        You said: “Put yourself in their shoes and think about the budget.
        You also have to think that the uneducated will end up like this janitor. It is an inevitable cycle that can only be solved by the public school system.”

        Think about what I posted above and think about this illustration. If that mother who earns P35,000 is given a tax cut of more than 15% and a tax credit in education, she could send her kids to school without relying on the government. That’s what I call justice.

        IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THAT WOMAN THAT THE JANITOR IS NOT ABLE TO SEND HIS CHILDREN TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. That illustration also explains that the government has no infinite pool of money. It simply relies on the taxpayers, meaning from those who earn more!

      • November 28, 2010 3:38

        You didn’t consider the cost of private school education. It’s 40,000 (that’s cheap for a semester). The call center agent and the janitor will not be able to send their children to school. Education is not the only thing that they spend on. So, I feel compassion for BOTH of them.

        Taxes is not a form of legitimized theft. It is a way of funding public goods. Do not think in a vacuum. Richer people use more of the government’s resources. Thus, they are to be taxed more.

        1st. Most of the infrastructures are used more by the rich. For example, the roads are used more by those who use cars. Airports are used by those who can afford a plane ticket. Most of your government agencies such as SEC, DTI, DFA are made to secure the interest of the well-off.

        2nd. The police and defense system is needed more by the rich to protect their property and welfare.

        3rd. The courts are used more by the rich in their usual business transactions.

        You must also consider that everyone pays taxes when they consume. No one escapes taxes. So, the poor and the rich must be treated equally by the government.

        In your statements, you do not really care about the welfare of the uneducated children. It is a fact that you must face that there are those who cannot afford education. There are no other feasible substitutes to the public school system that would enable the poor to study.

      • November 28, 2010 3:38

        I wish the government would just cut the budget for other things, not SUC.

        But according to some senators, there’s actually no budget cut.

        But then, PNoy’s statement is <a href="http://hindiakoto.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/inconsistency-is-the-name-of-the-game/"contradictory to what the senators say.

  18. John the Communists permalink
    November 28, 2010 3:38

    Are you sure what you’re talking about?

  19. November 29, 2010 3:38

    Kadamuan gid sa mga pilipino “INDIO”!!!!!!!!!
    Mga b*b* kag id**TS!!! wala gid ka intiende!!!!!!! 😛
    Halok kamo sa mga buli sang mga pulitiko kay ang diyos nyo ya gobyerno!!!!

  20. Ronald permalink
    November 29, 2010 3:38

    every ideal, whether it be Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or Free-market Capitalism wont work in a country like ours. We are effectively being run by a bureaucracy of capitalists, yes, by FOREIGN CAPITALISTS. Capitalism won’t work here for one because Filipinos aren’t given equal opportunities for business here in our own country, and our Government is entirely dependent on foreign investors to keep our sagging economy afloat. The absence of a free market in the Philippines negates the whole purpose of Free-Market Capitalism.

    Communism and Socialism also won’t work here, since we Filipinos are too selfish enough to care for our fellow citizen. State-controlled institutions of social service like Universities and Basic Education Schools, Hospitals, Penitentiaries, Transportation Facilities and other are vitally important, so THEY MUST NEVER BE under private control, so that they can never be commercialized to satisfy the end of a few. But corruption, poor management of state investitures and lack of government intervention practically makes them fail. Ang Pilipino kasi, magaling lang pag may pakinabang siya. pag wala, tapon nq.

    Capitalism is not bad per se. So is Communism and Socialism. But what me make out of them is what makes it bad.

    This quote is probably overused to breaking point now, but it still holds true seeing your trolling attitudes here (both for the defednders of both side, UP student or not.)

    “Ang Pinakamalaking Problema sa Pilipinas ay hindi Kapitalismo, Komunismo, Sosyalismo, Marxismo, o Pasismo……..kundi Tayo Mismo.”

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      Here’s my answer to your skeptic view… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-philippine-society-and-individual-freedom/

  21. November 29, 2010 3:38

    “We don’t have a right to enslave the productive members of our society.” Exactly! Cut the damn budget!

  22. November 30, 2010 3:38

    a factual approach on the matter: Why UP should not have any budget in the first place.

    http://kalamagz.multiply.com/journal/item/57/Why_University_of_the_Philippines_Should_NOT_Have_Any_Budget_AT_ALL

  23. December 1, 2010 3:38

    join in the war on my blog haha: http://kalamagz.multiply.com/journal/item/57/Why_University_of_the_Philippines_Should_NOT_Have_Any_Budget_AT_ALL

    • December 1, 2010 3:38

      Like I said: “To attack public education and welfare statism, one must identify their philosophical roots: the concept of “right” to education” and of a ‘Santa Claus’ government. We cannot approach this issue by simply pointing out distressing statistics and empirical studies on the failure of public education.”

      So long as these people believe that the government has the duty to provide almost everything they need- from education to health care to affording housing, etc.- and that they have a right to all public services, this country will remain poor and a nanny state.

      However, it’s good to note that your arguments are ‘somehow’ consistent with the free market views, although I believe that UP and other SUC’s should be privatized or abolished. If officials and people at UP were really good, they would have made UP a self-sustaining university. It seems that UP continues to rely on taxpayers’ money because of the notion that ‘education is a right’ and that the government has to provide it to those in need.

      Since words and terms have shades, let me state that this monstrous concept of ‘right to education’, according to the collective mentality of some Filipino hippies and parasites, means that people are entitled to a state-funded or subsidized education. In a free market society, everybody has access to affordable and quality education so long as one is willing to pay for it. Also, education is affordable under a free market economy because of the existence of competition. By contrast, our public school system, which is a form of monopoly, that has created 111 state-funded colleges and universities is one of the reasons why tuition and school fees continue to rise in private schools, colleges and universities because it stunts competition.

  24. erika permalink
    December 1, 2010 3:38

    Fallacious! Please review your arguments.

    I admit that UP has a fair share of evil and misdeeds for this country but still do not forget on what it did for this country!

    A national university is essential for a country because it develops research and development for its homeland.

    Imagine if their is no UP. There will be less great professors. The poor but smart people will have a slimmer chance of succeeding in life. ( The list can go on…)

    We are not all about the evils you speak of, we did a lot of great things too!

    OPEN YOUR EYES, DUDE!

    Honesty. Objectivity. Integrity.

    Wait, you forgot to add Hypocrisy to your oh, so shallow blog

    You have no right to bash UP unless you’ve overtaken what it did for this country!

    • Observer Kram permalink
      December 1, 2010 3:38

      Kindly point out the fallacious arguments of the blogger? It’s very easy to say ‘fallacious.’ Even your comment is utterly, absolutely fallacious and ignorant… honestly.

      Does that mean that you have the right to continue to be parasites of this country?

      • erika permalink
        December 1, 2010 3:38

        We are not always parasites. Actually, all of us are parasites in some ways.

      • Observer Kram permalink
        December 1, 2010 3:38

        @ Erika

        So what makes the blogger’s arguments fallacious? Is it because you disagree with what he said.

        Well, I demand that you substantiate your claim because most of the angry commenters here are all rants.

        Well, I think the UP students and officials are the biggest parasites. Why? Because they have lots of demands. Most of them claim they are the brightest yet they don’t know that the government relies on the taxpayers before it can have tax money to redistribute to UP students and officials.

        I never asked for any subsidy or government help. I’m an employer and I pay a lot in taxes to be paid for the education of young statist people who believe that the government must protect us from ourselves (if you know what this term means, because most of you have poor analytical thinking skills.

    • jepchupogi permalink
      December 1, 2010 3:38

      @ erika
      Kindly cite which of the authors arguments are fallacious, you said review it, but which ones, and pls give reasons why these are fallacious. Do them step by step, argument per argument.

      ———-

      A national university does not do all the research that the country benefits from, a lot of research also comes from the private sector. Therefore, implying that a national university is necessary for research is false. It is a source of research, yes; it may help private individuals with research, yes; If there is no national university and research work is required, then a private institution can fill this role without a problem, because if there is a sufficient need to fill, businessmen will research.

      ———-

      Again, pinning UP with great professors is wrong, professors are great because of themselves, not because they teach in UP. You must also consider that there are great professors and there are bat-shit insane ones in every school, EVERY. Therefore, if there is no UP, i will admit that there will be no great UP prof, there will be no bat-shit insane UP prof, in fact, there would be no UP profs at all because there is no UP to begin with, BUT, the greatness of these professors are not granted by the institution of UP, the greatness (or the bat-shit insanity) lies within the person this prof embodies, where will the profs be without UP? They will just be somewhere else, being great (or bat shit insane).

      If ever you are going to go alternate universe of no UP, it would be hard to speculate on the effect on such profs education and other factors, however, i would say that a great person is great regardless of any circumstances and he will not be bounded just because he studied (or not studied) in UP.

      ———-

      The poor will actually have a higher chance to succeed in life without UP (in general, a state funded university). pls read my post https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/cut-the-education-budget/#comment-6158 , i have laid out some situations which the TRUE scholars are able to get scholarships from private institutions.
      The reason that they would have a higher chance of succeeding is that from all the people who wants a scholarship, they would be sifted by strict standards of the benefactor/s. Only then those you described as “poor but smart people” and let me add the word DESERVING, will be able to succeed without all the UNDESERVING people getting some share from the scholarship that was meant for the DESERVING.

      The list that goes on? it can probably be debunked one by one, if you show it to me. Basically, it can be debunked by comparing 2 worlds, one is reality, and another hypothetical, where in the hypothetical an object/person is non existent. We must face the fact that whether or not we exist (or existed) the world is there being inhabited by other people. There was a time where you didn’t exist, there will be a time that you won’t exist anymore, and the world continues to turn, therefore the world does not depend on you or any other institutions to function.

      ———-

      Perhaps good things have been done by the UP, but this blog tackles the things to come if UP continues to clamor for more gov’t handouts, the continued distortion of the word “rights”, Philippine society will fall. For a more detailed example of this refer to http://mises.org/daily/4835 it is titled “How and Why the State Destroys Society”.

      HOPE YOU ARE CONVINCED ENOUGH TO OPEN YOU EYES

    • exnihilonihilfit permalink
      December 1, 2010 3:38

      ERIKA: “Imagine if their is no UP. There will be less great professors. The poor but smart people will have a slimmer chance of succeeding in life. ( The list can go on…)”

      EXCUSE YOU! wtf?!

      PS: poor but smart people ka jan.. ang yayaman ng ibang mga nagaaral sa UP yung mga mahihirap naubusan na ng slots for subsidised/free education.

      PPSS: everyone got share of what? evil and misdeeds? kaya okay lang ang UP in its current state of ‘evilness’? fair nuff, kaya di umaasenso ang pilipinas kasi ang state university na yan ay may ‘fair share’ ng katarantaduhan na tinotolerate ng taong tulad mo!

      putulan ng budget yang UP at dagdag ang budget ng Mababang Paaralan ng Itaas!

      • Samsung permalink
        December 2, 2010 3:38

        “PS: poor but smart people ka jan.. ang yayaman ng ibang mga nagaaral sa UP yung mga mahihirap naubusan na ng slots for subsidised/free education.”

        Some but not all. UP wasn’t called a microcosm of Philippine Society if it there were no rich students in it.

        During its days when it was still called as the American University of the Philippines, almost everyone in it was rich. Now, UP and other state universities are equalizers. They give an opportunity to those who are poor to study.

        Is it not evil to let the poor stay poor when they are the ones who put you into power? The writer of this blog lacks knowledge in governance, history, economics, and ethics. The following are the reasons:

        For governance, his proposals are out of this world and do not consider the decision-making process.

        For economics, he promotes olden-day capitalism but does not know the reason for the emergence of the new theories. Relying on the invisible hand has made tremendous suffering during the Great Depression. Therefore, the capitalism of those days are proven to be inefficient in handling the needs of society.

        For ethics, the writer is supposed to follow the principle of Utilitarianism due to his adherence to capitalism. However, he might not know that utilitarianism’s single moral requirement is to produce the most good for the most people while giving equal consideration to everyone affected. His proposed actions are clearly immoral if you use that particular theory of right actions; it does not consider the good for most and it does not give equal consideration to the affected individuals.

        I think the author likes writing only. (In other words, writing without sufficient understanding of the delicate theories and issues that he is discussing.) He is also closed-minded. He resorts to name-calling whenever someone is against him. He even calls professors as stupid people. (this is the most outrageous, i think. How could this unknown individual claim that professors are stupid when he obviously does not have exposure to that field.)

      • December 2, 2010 3:38

        @ Samsung,

        First off, let me say that you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, which means that whatever you learned in college is not yet enough for you to understand wide abstractions and concepts like free market capitalism, rights, politics, ethics and economics.

        “Some but not all. UP wasn’t called a microcosm of Philippine Society if it there were no rich students in it.”

        Which means that UP must be abolished for trying to perpetuate the injustice of the statist intellectuals and advocates of leftism. If UP is for everybody, why not allow rich to enroll? This means that the purpose of UP is attached to that Marxist code: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

        You said: “During its days when it was still called as the American University of the Philippines, almost everyone in it was rich. Now, UP and other state universities are equalizers. They give an opportunity to those who are poor to study. ”

        Any citation? Any proof to your statement. FYI, UP was given a land grant and it enjoys autonomy. If UP graduates are really good, they should have made it a self-sustaining university. UP continues to rely on government financial assistance- it remains a PARASITE- because of the notion that education is a right and that the state must provide almost everything the people need.

        You said: “For governance, his proposals are out of this world and do not consider the decision-making process. ”

        For your information, my proposal was concretized and applied by Estonia under the administration of PM Mart Laar. Laar proved that privatization is the key to economic progress in statist, or semi-socialist societies. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/freakonomics-radio-what-would-the-world-look-like-if-economists-were-in-charge/ It’s the proposals of statists from UP and other schools that won’t work because they are all fantasies. Have you not seen the news. Many European countries like Great Britain and France have cut their education budget simply because they can no longer afford to finance public education? This simply means that public education is an evil idea that bankrupted many nations on earth. Even America can no longer afford to fund its unionized education. The only difference is that America is now under the rule of a socialist politician named BO.

        You said: “For economics, he promotes olden-day capitalism but does not know the reason for the emergence of the new theories. Relying on the invisible hand has made tremendous suffering during the Great Depression. Therefore, the capitalism of those days are proven to be inefficient in handling the needs of society.”

        This shows your utter ignorance. What do you mean by olden-day capitalism? Do you know what you’re talking about? What new theories are you talking about? Kindly specify these things because it really appears you simply typed in words which you don’t understand. This line reeks of utter stupidity: “Relying on the invisible hand has made tremendous suffering during the Great Depression.” Do you know what caused the Great Depression? It’s BIG GOVERNMENT, stupid. The Great Depression was specifically caused the creation of the Federal Reserve. I’ve tackled this issue here so please educate yourself https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/statistm-a-love-story/ and here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/america-an-obituary/ . For your information, there was no capitalism in the US in the 20th century because of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the Sherman Act or antitrust laws that stifled the American Economy. Better read this to educate yourself https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-philippine-society-and-individual-freedom/ .

        You said: “For ethics, the writer is supposed to follow the principle of Utilitarianism due to his adherence to capitalism.”

        This is one of the DUMBEST, STUPIDEST comments I’ve received online. Do you know what utilitarianism means? Utilitarianism is incompatible with capitalism, idiot. Educate yourself. I’ve tackled it here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/quo-vadis-ludwig-von-mises/ . I stated: “Today there’s a need to save laissez-faire capitalism not only from the utilitarian mentality and mystical morality of the conservatives, but most importantly from the perverted political ideology of the anti-freedom Libertarians.” And here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/on-laissez-faire-capitalism-and-protectionism/ . I wrote: “Ideologically, protectionism is based on the utilitarian idea that the government must secure and provide the “greatest good for the greatest number.” Only the government or a potential dictator can define the concept of “greatest good.” If this stupid guy wishes to know my ethics, he should have read this https://fvdb.wordpress.com/my-morality/ . And this https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/on-ethics-and-politics/

        I write to counter the idiocy of some people (like you) here, and for some future endeavor. You just have to read some of my blogs to know my purpose because your utter idiocy and your disgusting context-dropping is simply hilarious. As to name-calling I discussed that here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/welfare-state-the-agenda-behind-the-rh-bill/ . A stupid commenter like you remains stupid. Better know where I’m coming from. Learn from the ideas of Sun Tzu.

      • exnihilonihilfit permalink
        December 5, 2010 3:38

        hi samsung,

        I said ‘ibang nag aaral sa UP’

        before you whip your tongue/fingers on the keyboard, paki basa muna. I dont like my writing, kahit bastardised english yung akin, to be used as a tool to demonstrate one’s ‘intelligence’. in short, bago ka manabla, basahin mo muna ng maayos.

  25. Samsung permalink
    December 3, 2010 3:38

    You said, “If UP is for everybody, why not allow rich to enroll? This means that the purpose of UP is attached to that Marxist code: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

    Hahahhahaha! STUPID! UP doesn’t accept students who did not perform well during their secondary education and those who don not have the aptitude to survive the standards of the university. They don’t care if you’re rich or poor.

    “This shows your utter ignorance. What do you mean by olden-day capitalism? Do you know what you’re talking about? What new theories are you talking about? Kindly specify these things because it really appears you simply typed in words which you don’t understand. This line reeks of utter stupidity: “Relying on the invisible hand has made tremendous suffering during the Great Depression.” Do you know what caused the Great Depression? It’s BIG GOVERNMENT, stupid. The Great Depression was specifically caused the creation of the Federal Reserve. I’ve tackled this issue here so please educate yourself”

    The cause of the Great Depression was not caused by a big government. (You make me laugh. It’s the other way around) Due to the failure of the government to intervene after the stock market crash (yeah. FYI, markets fail.) and its inaction to prevent the banks from failing, unemployment rose and there was a downward shift in investment demand. The US government that time surely did their best to stay away from the economy. Look at what happened.

    You obviously didn’t know that the lesson learned from the Great Depression is that a private economy is inherently unstable- that recessions can occur spontaneously. It’s no longer theories that prove this; It’s reality.

    Please don’t cite yourself. Judging from your lack of basic knowledge of economic history and obviously false claims, you are not a credible writer. Ergo, I won’t read everything that you wrote. You clearly don’t have a grasp of what you are saying. You even said that UP doesn’t let rich students enroll. Haha!

    Don’t tell me that I’m a stupid commenter. Can’t you see? You’re a stupid writer.

    • Samsung permalink
      December 3, 2010 3:38

      The Great Depression was not caused by a big government*

      • December 3, 2010 3:38

        “The cause of the Great Depression was not caused by a big government. (You make me laugh. It’s the other way around) Due to the failure of the government to intervene after the stock market crash (yeah. FYI, markets fail.)”

        That clearly shows your utter stupidity. Whatever you said is utterly wrong, historically and factually. Identify yourself if you really believe that your lunatic arguments are true. Give me your name and tell me who you are and I will deal with you anytime and I will make it sure I’m going to SLAP reality across your face. Most of my stupid commenters have the guts to say whatever they want here simply because they’re hiding behind troll names.

        Perhaps you already know my name (if not I’ll give it to you). Let me challenge you then, tell me your name and who you are and I will debate you online. I don’t wanna argue with a troll as much as possible because trolls have the guts to say whatever fallacious arguments they want online. Now if you’re BRAVE enough and if you really believe your fallacious, non-factual arguments are true, you must be proud to take my challenge and debate me online using your real name.

        Take my challenge or not?

      • December 3, 2010 3:38

        HERE’S MY CHALLENGE…

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/debate-challenge-to-a-stupid-college-bred-troll/

        Let me see if you have the courage to accept it. Let me remind you that all of my previous challengers had the courage/guts to reveal their name. Now is your time to show if you’ve got any BALLS!

      • Samsung permalink
        December 3, 2010 3:38

        Huh? Trolling? My time is more valuable than that. So you also accuse anyone who disagrees with you as a troll. Kapal naman ng mukha mo. You’re the one who’s been antagonizing the poor students of SUCs.

  26. May 14, 2011 3:38

    How Can I Actually Make Money Online With No Scams And Is Free?: i’am serious about trying to make a little extra

  27. January 10, 2014 3:38

    Fantastic site. A lot of useful info here. I’m sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious.
    And naturally, thank you for your effort!

Trackbacks

  1. Cut the Education Budget on College Hippies! « THE VINCENTON POST club university
  2. The Spirit of Entitlement in the University of the Philippines Protests | Elevic Pernis - The Road to Weirdom
  3. World Spinner
  4. college applications in texas | COLLEGES
  5. Tweets that mention Cut the Education Budget on College Hippies! « THE VINCENTON POST -- Topsy.com
  6. Arguing with a UP Moron named Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza « aristogeek
  7. Another Argument With a UP Moron « aristogeek
  8. Debate Challenge to a Stupid College-Bred Troll « THE VINCENTON POST
  9. Are there any private colleges that transfer credits to state universities? ? | Uncategorized | Information about Careers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: