One of the most widespread arguments against privatization of education is that private educational institutions are run solely on profit motive & lacks ‘social commitment’. Almost every child is born capable of knowing pain and pleasure. He acts to further his pleasure and avoid pain. As he grows up, he learns to endure pain when necessary, when it furthers his pursuit of long term pleasure. Often we find children, and of course grown up men pursuing short term pleasure no matter what it’s long lasting effect may be. No sane, intelligent person now would argue it is expedient to cut of this pain-pleasure mechanism in order to avoid such self hurting tendencies. Children lacking this mechanism, as we all know wouldn’t live long enough to be a grown up man. As pain-pleasure mechanism acts as the life-nerve of a child, profit motive acts as the life-nerve of an organization. An organization can’t survive well for long when profit motive is taken off from its goals. I offer you Soviet Russia –Or any public sector enterprise-as an elegant example of what I am talking about. Such is the intellectual status of a man arguing against profit motive.
Let’s now, talk of his moral status. What sort of a person would argue against man’s striving for pleasure? He’s the doper, the drunkard, the chain smoker, the woman-chaser, the irresponsible semi-somnambulist wretch. What could be said of his notion of pleasure? Is there any wonder that he finds it expedient to cut it off? Such is his moral status. And such is the moral status of a man opposing profit motive.
We now have to find out what the word ‘social commitment’ is supposed to mean. Parents have commitment towards their child. A man has it toward his wife and the wife has it in back. An employer has the responsibility to pay his employees as much as he has agreed to pay. Employees have the same responsibility to finish off the work in the best manner possible. A trader has it toward his customers. A man of course, has to take responsibility for his acts and should live up to his promises. All the commitments above mentioned are individual. No man, but has any responsibility toward the child or woman he just met on the street. No employer has the responsibility to grant employment to every seeker, nor has any one the responsibility to work for any prospective employer. No one has to trade with all prospective clients. If so, what is this ‘social commitment’ supposed to mean other than living up to the promise of educating the consumers as they had promised? Isn’t it preposterous that the ones, who argue against a man’s responsibility to educate his own child, call for ‘social commitment’ from the part of private educational institutions? Logical inconsistency is explicit when one argues a man should not be held responsible for his acts, but shall be held responsible for the acts of his fellow beings. Why it is that one should be held responsible for the education of another man’s child? Is it the high promiscuity in our society which the left liberals are trying to point out?