Hey, I was talking today about this with someone, a capitalist education system, like outlined here - http://www.capitalism.org/faq/education.htm I don't see how this wouldn't be carnage, so many parents wouldn't be able to afford it, even with the costs down due to competition it's hard enough for a lot of low wage workers to make ends meet as it is, how will they also afford this too? I understand the public education system isn't too good, but surely having that and the private run sector is better then just a private sector, in the sense that at least everyone will get some education, I can't see how under a capitalism education system everyone will be able to afford it, surely LOADS won't? Anyone who has been at the lower chain of class would probably tell you that? Interested to hear opinions.
If there is no public school then people wouldn't have to pay taxes on their home property which goes to fund public education, at least it does in the united states. Over the long run it would save people money assuming that taxes that fund education would be dropped.
Well, public education is actually a relatively new thing. And federally organized education in the US only goes back about 30 years. Home schooling. Charity schooling. You're forgetting that they would save the tax costs to fund public education as well. All of these socialistic arguments are based on a notion of positive rights. That the government (which is funded by, and represents, your fellow citizens) has an obligation to educate you. As mentioned on the page you linked, a positive right means that the people who pay taxes, are slaves to those who require education. It also takes the educational choices away from the person being educated, and their parents, and places those education standards and choices in the public domain. This is a very thought provoking article on Private Education. It's not a scholarly paper, but interesting none the less. Meant to make you look at things a little differently. What If Public Schools Were Abolished? http://www.mises.org/story/2937 Excerpt The same sort of logic applies to medical care as well. The nice thing about free market thinking, is that 99% of the time, the principles hold true. That's as good a record as any other ideology. But you have to remember that free market capitalism is not at ALL interfered with by the government. Big business cannot buy monopoly power from politicians in the form of regulation that limits market choices and prevents competition.
I never said that, tho. Take out how it is funded for a second and forget about that, my point is surely a system where lots of people won't be able to afford a education isn't a good system? (Tho I could be wrong, which is why I started the topic), but being from a very lower end wage family and knowing lots of similiar families I am finding it hard to understand how a lot of people won't go without an education if this system is in place. So while it isn't a 'right', it is something everyone should have, and if a system is in place where lots might not get it, how is that a good system?
How can you say it is something everyone should have and then say it is not a right? That's a really muddy argument. You didn't read all of my post. The cost of public education is twice as much as private education. And you can't take out how (or why) it is funded. That's integral to the entire discussion.
No it isn't. I never said it's something everything one is 'entitled' too, I said it's something everyone should 'have', theres a difference, everyone should have an education. How they get it is another thing. And countries that have socialised medical care pay less, the cost is a lot less overall, so are you for that too? No, it isn't. Not to my question, anyway.
This was a promising discussion, but you're not being clear. Either you feel that everyone getting an education is valuable, and a goal, or you don't. I can't see how you think an education is a necessity, but it's not a right... The service level is lower as well. The choices are more limited, and the wait times are longer. But yeah, it's cheap. I give up. Best of luck.
I was gonna give up anyway... But Service is lower in the free healthcare yeah, but the private healthcare is still there, and a basic free halthcare for people who without it wouldn't get anything (Like 40m+ people in America) is still better than no healthcare. Same goes for the wait times, since when was having the option to get something done and wait better then not having the option? The private sector is still there if you have the money and don't want to wait. It's the best of both worlds.
No it isn't. The private sector can't properly compete with a state run service. The government has unlimited funding, legal protection, unlimited customers and less accountability. I don't even know why you started this thread to read thoughts, then you respond without reading my post, and hold positions that contradict what you are saying. That's all fine. But private education is what brought this country to the top, public education (particularly centrally planned) is what is dragging it down. Why do you think homeschooled kids run circles around publicly schooled kids? One is a daycare that teaches, and the other is a day care run by teachers.
So how comes I live in a country where I can go private if I don't wish to wait for the free healthcare? I'm not contradicting, maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly, which is why I gave up, but you're not understanding what I was saying. And my question was with so many families struggling to make ends meet whether lots of families wouldn't be able to provide an education for their kids as a result of no free schools. You're right tho that I originally missed the 'tax' point you made.
Also for my original comment, if I re-worded it like this So while it isn't a 'right', it's better for a person to have an education than not have an education, and if a system is in place where lots might not get it, how is that a good system? Does that make more sense?
You're putting a subjective value judgment on "best of both worlds". If I have time, which I do not, I would explain it in detail. Some key ideas for you might be, duplication of capital goods public system is likely over funded but under performing (hence the need for a shadow private system) Private system cannot leverage economies of scale, due to competition with state subsidized public system.... Nope, I'm not understanding what you are saying. Did you read the article I linked? It's not that long. There is no free. Someone else is subsidizing you. The government can't produce schools, buses, teachers and books out of thin air by casting a spell... ABRA CADABRA! Again, some studies show that public education costs twice as much as private. In Washington DC, where the Federal government manages the city, the education system is most expensive public setup, per student, and one of the absolute worst for performance. But that is consistent, with the government throwing more money at problems, because money is cheap for them. Private enterprise must be competitive, and provide more for less. The kids who get the best education in America, continue to be the homeschoolers. Homeschooling is virtually free if you have a parent who stays home. So based on that, why shouldn't families save the $12~14,000 per child, per year and one parent stays home to educate them? For a family of 3, that's a $36,000 a year wage.
If you're asking if education is a good thing, yes. I think it is. But the notion that "lots won't get it" is silly to me. The market will provide for demand. If parents want their children to be educated, they will receive an education within their means. In fact, the argument I am trying to present is that they might even receive more than they get right now. Not to mention that, things are evolving so quickly. Kids won't need schools anymore. Hardly any young people read books anymore. Learning will be done at home, with computers. And with the web, there is no reason that kids can't become self-educating. Asking the questions they need answers for, instead of being told what they need to know for college, 4 years from now, when jobs and industry demand will already have evolved past their high school pre-college training. The free market responds a lot faster than government, with a lot more flexibility. So the question becomes, do you want a free education just so you can say you are educated? Or do you want a quality education, that might cost you an extra $200 or $500 per kid per year? Are you educating your kids because you feel you have to, or because you truly believe that the better their education, the better their chances for a good life? God, people who settle for public goods frustrate me so much.
Fact is tho if I don't want to wait I can still go private and get in without the wait, a free healthcare for people who can't afford the private healthcare is still better then none, here we have the option of both, it's a good thing - It's funny that most people who have socialised medicine and private healthcare are happy with the system and most of the ones that think it's so god awful are the people who have never experienced it over any length of time and just go by what propaganda is thrown their way. I know that, I should of put a comma around 'free'. So basically with the money saved via the taxes they are currently forced to pay they could afford the private schools if a capitalistic system came into place? The taxes will drop as a result and that money can be spent on the private school, that correct? And no, I havent read that article yet, I will tho.
I have experience with this. And the US health system is not free market capitalist. It is managed care, heavily corporatized by the government. You should, because it is misleading and dishonest. I know you are not being dishonest on purpose, but imagine if I kept calling public education "inferior education". Wouldn't be conducive to a good discussion... I really don't want to post to you anymore until you do. You're putting a lot less into this discussion than I am, and I have other things to do.