Buy the book

"...a rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing."

Matt Ridley
The Spectator

Order now at:

Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.com

 

Recent posts
More about me

Bishop Hill is not a bishop. He's not actually called Hill either. He is an Englishman who lives in rural Scotland.

Something to read
Bishop Hill's Constitution for the UK
Login
Powered by Squarespace
« Good Friday | Main | Book reviews »
Wednesday
11Apr2007

Compulsory education

It's sometimes said that the nanny state and the welfare state are two sides of the same coin. Because the state, via the taxpayer, funds healthcare, it is said to be reasonable for government to dictate our diets and exercise regime.  A similar sort of argument applies to the government's plans to extend the school leaving age for those who have no job to go to, which have so irked Fabian Tassano.

Fabian seems absolutely clear on this issue - to his mind it is abhorrent and wrong for the state to dictate to people in this way. But to me the answer to the question of whether government should dictate school leaving ages is not an obvious one. If the taxpayer is to support these people, is it not right that they should also demand that the recipients of this largesse should actually do something useful with the money - like study?

Don't get me wrong - if I were running the country the taxpayer wouldn't be supporting these people at all. It's just to say that if I am forced to pay to feed someone who can't or won't support themselves, should I be fighting for their right to sit on their backsides doing nothing?

I don't mean to say that Fabian is wrong. Just that I need convincing that he's right. 

Reader Comments (4)

Whilst a good argument can be made for recipients of largesse doing something useful, you have made the assumption that for the people in question this includes study. I'm unconvinced of the latter.
April 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterView from the Solent
Yes, I'm sure there's a practical argument that the money is better spent on keeping them idle, rather than interrupting those who actually want to study. This doesn't mean that we are witnessing an attack on liberty quite as egregious as Fabian thinks.
April 12, 2007 | Registered CommenterBishop Hill
But why do you think that the only alternative to paying them to (probably not even) make the pretence of studying is paying them to do nothing?
April 12, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterView from the Solent
I'm struggling here! If they can't get a job, and they're not going to study or do nothing, what could they do?

Maybe I just need some more coffee.
April 13, 2007 | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>