Entitlement in question

In the last two weeks, I have attempted to make the case against extreme budget cuts proposed by some members of the Utah State Legislature. I believe that extensive budget cuts have the potential to severely damage Utah’s future and do harm to individuals and the community. This week, Micah and I take opposing views about the morality of education cuts. Micah argues that budget cuts ought to happen in order to make USU students moral beings. I do not intend for this article to necessarily bolster my argument, but rather to undermine the arguments that some are making in favor of higher education budget cuts.
    Some proponents of education budget cuts believe that the generation we are members of is an “Entitlement Generation.” This generation is purported to believe that we are entitled to everything, including iPods, cars and a higher education. This state of existence is wrong because it leads people to focus upon the transitory pleasures of this life instead of the more lofty matters awaiting our attentions. This is especially wrong because the “Entitlement Generation” feels like they are owed pleasures and that they have a right to take what they want from society without returning anything. 
    To be honest, many of these sentiments may be correct. In fact, I would even agree with the belief that many of our generation are given too much for too little effort and this is immoral. However, this does not mean that we ought to create a “Morality Police” whose mission it is to curb the feelings of entitlement.
    Those who want to cut higher education budgets in order to teach our generation how to be a moral people without feelings of entitlement are some of the more arrogant members of society. This arrogance is displayed by the apparent belief that their system of morality is the best system and thus, should be imposed upon society by the government.
    On the surface, this accusation may seem to be a trifle. But let us look at another, more drastic example of imposed morality. In late 1917, Vladimir Lenin and members of the successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia assumed control of the government. Their creed was communism, and they sought to create a dictatorship of the proletariat to replace Russia’s Tsar. In other words, they replaced one dictator with Lenin and his followers, who were also dictators. While the Tsar carried no ideology with his government, Lenin attempted to create a Russian socialist state. Lenin’s belief in the moral superiority of socialism gave him the excuse to crush any opponents. Thereafter, any dissidence within the state, or even perceived dissidence, had the potential to be crushed with an iron fist. Stalin, Mao and many other communist leaders in the last century have used the excuse of their moral superiority in order to dictate people’s actions and destroy dissidents through mass murder. From this example we can see that an imposed ideology is a danger to personal liberties and life.
    The belief that we ought to attempt to force people to live without feelings of entitlement could also be dangerous to personal liberty. There is no limit to what could happen if the government sought to remove feelings of entitlement. Proponents of such programs believe in stasism, or a condition in which progress is stopped because progress might be dangerous. Allowing a child to play outside is also potentially dangerous, but it also brings with it a wealth of possibilities for growth and learning. Stopping societal progress might be appealing, but in reality, it requires a large amount of intervention to prevent it. Stopping society from organically moving forward would take a strong, authoritarian government with control over information outlets and technological innovation. Those who appear to feel entitled could have property and money taken away from them in an effort to teach feelings of un-entitlement.
    The primary problem with an argument aimed towards imposing some sort of morality is that the imposition of morality is a slippery slope which opens doors for all sorts of government actions which may undermine personal liberties. Any arguments in favor of educational budget cuts ought not to be couched in the guise of regulating morality.

This editorial is the third installment of a four-part series and was written by Richard Kelly, a graduate student studying political science. Comments can be sent to richard.kelly@aggiemail.usu.edu.