Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

More on student unionism

Chris replied.

I should have made it more clear that I'm not particularly in favour of compulsory student unionism; I'm just annoyed by facile arguments against it.

I think one major difference is that unlike many taxes, compulsory student union fees are fixed, regardless of the ability to pay. This would be similar to everyone having to pay $20,000 per year in income tax regardless of how much they earned.

It's not really similar: $20k is perhaps half the average income, but even when I was a moderately poor student my income was more than twice the union fee of ~$180. So it's really comparable to everyone paying $1400 per annum. (Which, when you put it that way, sounds pretty good.) And of course many taxes are unrelated to income.

(Not that this would hold any water with the user-pays approach espoused by Julian, mind you: since people get the same benefit, they should pay the same amount. Indeed, strictly applying user-pays, we should tax poor people *more* because they're more likely to use healthcare, social security, prisons, etc...)

Why is there such a strong objection by the student unions to HECS fees which don't need to paid until people are able to, and at the same time strong support for up front union fees?

Because student unions tend to have a socialist, redistributivist bent, and so to want government services to be funded by a wide base, not just the people who use them. So for example the Women's Room should be funded by all students, not just women who use it, and universities should be funded by all taxpayers not just students. If they could get their funding from federal consolidated revenue (ie from all taxpayers) and not just from students, then I think they would. It is consistent, although I don't really agree.

Surely if the student unions are correct about the importance of the services, they will be able to convince the majority of the students (who being able to qualify for university courses should be reasonably intelligent) that the fees are going to a good common cause, and that they should continue to pay the fees.

Right, and you can make the exact same argument about taxes: if I feel that, say, hospitals are good, I ought to join a private HMO or pay my own bills or donate to a charitable hospital. I wouldn't personally go that far, but the logical conclusion of Julian's argument is no compulsory taxation at all.

One argument for compulsory taxation is redistributive, another is the free-rider effect: I benefit from the existence of the judicial system, even if I don't directly use it in any particular year. Similarly: all students supposedly benefit from their representatives' participation in the university senate.

Having said all that I think you could probably wind back the union budgets a great deal and try to make them more representative and efficient. I don't see why compulsory fees should go to fund political, religious, sports or recreational societies. I have nothing against clubs, but it's clearly something people will pay for themselves, and people who don't participate shouldn't be forced to fund them. But then I think that goes for a lot of state and federal programs too.

Therefore, I'd like to see competition between different unions: if one university wants to have a low-taxing union, why not let them? Why is this a federal government issue at all? (Well, I know why, but that's a different story.)

posted Thu 24 Mar 2005 in /issues/politics | link

Note on Student Unionism

On Radio Nartional today, Julian Barendse, President, Australian Liberal Student Federation argues that university students shouldn't have to pay student union fees because they might not make use of all the services, or they might feel the council doesn't represent them. Why not apply this logic at all levels: I make use of few federal government services and dislike many ministers, so why do I have to pay tax?

(Well, I understand the social contract argument, but it disappoints me that Julian apparently doesn't.)

Alternatively, why not put it to the test: let each university student and faculty decide whether they want a compulsory union, and how much the levy should be. Let the Good Universities Guide rate each one on the quality and cost-effectiveness of their unions.

posted Wed 23 Mar 2005 in /issues/politics | link

Progress on bazaar-ng

(I should write more, but I've been busy.)

Bazaar-NG has been announced, and gained a cautiously positive reaction from the community, including in a slashdot thread about Bitkeeper. There have been some good suggestions but I think we're mostly on the right track.

The most contentious points seem to be:

1. Choice of Python as a development language, and specifically whether the performance will be OK.
2. Fused branches and directories: two specific points, one is that separate repositories are good for backups, and that shared branches are good for many development methods.

I've been using it every day for managing its own development, and it's coming along well, though there is still much to do.

I have a couple of busy weeks in April with linux.conf.au and Ubuntu Down Under. Before that starts I'd like to put in simple branch and merge commands and fix some other small things.

And there is a first snapshot release!

posted Tue 22 Mar 2005 in /software/vc/bzr | link

Popper on knowledge

I got a collection of essays by Karl Popper in Bungendore the other week. Here's a selection I like:

What we should do, I suggest, is to give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all human knowledge is human: that it is mixed withour errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes: that all we can do is grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach. We may admit that our groping is often inspired, but we must be on our guard against the belief, however deeply felt, that our inspiration carries any authority, divine or otherwise. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far it may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority. And we must retain it. For without this idea there can be no objective standards of inquiry; no criticism of our conjectures; no groping for the unknown; no quest for knowledge.

posted Tue 22 Mar 2005 in /books | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.