Yes, it's fair. Just like a lot of public works and services are funded by taxes even if you in particular don't use them.
More importantly, fairness is a trade-off. Granting free universal access to certain things benefits the poor and those with lower incomes, even if it's not particularly beneficial for people with higher incomes. That's a good trade-off in my opinion, and in the opinion of progressive governments.
> . Granting free universal access to certain things benefits the poor and those with lower incomes, even if it's not particularly beneficial for people with higher incomes. That's a good trade-off in my opinion, and in the opinion of progressive governments.
This is patently, obscenely false.
A value-added economy depends on qualified, skilled labor. If the pool of people with higher education is smaller, you will have less potential to develop industries with that requirement. Training costs will fall on companies (which will be onerous and will not supplant a 4-year degree), and costs for the smaller labor pool go up.
It is in the interests of all developing economies to have talent in their workforce. It's a significant limiting factor in many industries in Latin America.
Oh, no disagreement here. My comment was poorly worded. I meant "even if it didn't particularly benefit", but like you said, it's in the overall best interest of everyone in the country that the majority of the population has access to good quality education. And this is true even if you don't think in terms of the workforce.
With an exception, of course: some people would rather the rest of the people weren't as well educated as themselves. That way they can continue paying them miserably low salaries. It's a self-destructive behavior, but it still happens, because some people don't think long term. I didn't want to address this in my original comment.
My main gripe with the language of progressive politics is the redefinition of words like "fair."
Intellectual honesty demands that you call things what they are. Marketing demands you redefine things to make people feel the right warm-and-fuzzies. What you did is the latter.
"What is justice/fairness?" is one of those philosophical questions that will never be closed. Claiming that there exists some ground truth definition of fair is, frankly, naive.
Terms like "just" and "fair" are over-loaded and refer to an ephemeral concept for which there are multiple, competing explanations and theories. No consensus or ground truth exists, so it's always fair game to introduce new explanations and theories. This has been the case for at least thousands of years.
Progressive politics didn't "redefine" fairness in any meaningful sense. Whose definition of "fair" isn't a "redefinition"? Rawls? Plato?
It is fair to the country that a greater number of people have access to good quality education. The lesser unfairness that this causes in the people who don't care about public education is acceptable. Same as the lesser unfairness that public roads cause to people who don't use roads is also acceptable. This is the greater good we are talking about.
Read my reply to Daishiman. In the longer term, it's fair to them as well. And in any case, fairness is a relative term. It's fair to the country as a whole.
More importantly, fairness is a trade-off. Granting free universal access to certain things benefits the poor and those with lower incomes, even if it's not particularly beneficial for people with higher incomes. That's a good trade-off in my opinion, and in the opinion of progressive governments.