Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL, looks like we have a libertarian ideologue to play with.
Before I go on, I will point out that I'm not statist - there is a strong (left-) libertarian streak to my politics.
But your assertions are just silly. Governments weren't put here by god or by aliens wearing silver hats - they're just organisations that people have come together to create. Of course, a small minority of powerful people have had a hugely disproportionate role in decide with they do - but the same is true of industry.
We can talk about Steve Jobs (RIP). As far as I know, governments (whether at a local or national level) ran the schools that he and his collaborators were educated at, built the roads and railways on which his products and their components are taken around the world, and operated the institutions of law that protected his intellectual property. Every country that has reached a situation in which it can be a market for high-end consumer goods has done so in the context of a state that provides security from international aggression (and indeed, often engages in strategic aggression to pursue its economic goals), and internal law and order.
As I suggest above, my ideal society would be one based on much less state control, and more on mutual aid and cooperation. But the point we have reached so far, for better or worse, has been achieved with major input from governments.
are you suggesting that steve jobs' success wouldn't have been if it wasn't for government ? roads and railways existed WAY before government existed.. if anything, all the current government has done is regulate and tax the s*** out of him.. like you said, they protect his rights to HIS intellectual property through courts and etc, so atleast they are doing what they are suppose to in that case HOWEVER they still do ALOT more than they're supposed to. their job is to protect individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud through courts, police and military. nothing else. what good has come from everything else they've been doing ? minimum wage = higher unemployment. welfare system = encourages people to be unproductive. funding schools = government controls a monopoly meaning less competition between private schools meaning lower quality education overall. funding hospital = same problem as school. creating new laws = stripping everyone of their natural rights. etc the list is endless
are you suggesting that steve jobs' success wouldn't have been if it wasn't for government ? roads and railways existed WAY before government existed.. if anything, all the current government has done is regulate and tax the s*** out of him.
Erm, railways, and roads in their modern form, first came into existence in the 1800s, when afaik most countries already had a government. Both have at some points been built by the private sector, but if you can name me a country with a world-class road or rail network that hasn't been built and maintained to a significant extent by the governments, be my guest!
And if you can name me a country or a point in history in which 95%+ literacy has been achieved without a publicly funded school system, I'd be fascinated to hear...
Erm, railways, and roads in their modern form, first came into existence in the 1800s, when afaik most countries already had a government. Both have at some points been built by the private sector, but if you can name me a country with a world-class road or rail network that hasn't been built and maintained to a significant extent by the governments, be my guest!
And if you can name me a country or a point in history in which 95%+ literacy has been achieved without a publicly funded school system, I'd be fascinated to hear...
yeh, roads already existed in their modern form WAY BEFORE governments started sticking their nose in and had anything to do with them.
as for schools, think about it... in the ideal world where government does not control education, all schools will be private/independant.. are you saying the government funded schools, which have a graduation rate of 60% SHOULD BE KEPT, instead of them being private schools, which have a graduation rate of 95% ?? 60% if government has anything to do with it.. 95% if government doesn't.. and you think 60% is better ??
yeh, roads already existed in their modern form WAY BEFORE governments started sticking their nose in and had anything to do with them.
as for schools, think about it... in the ideal world where government does not control education, all schools will be private/independant.. are you saying the government funded schools, which have a graduation rate of 60% SHOULD BE KEPT, instead of them being private schools, which have a graduation rate of 95% ?? 60% if government has anything to do with it.. 95% if government doesn't.. and you think 60% is better ??
There are plenty of countries in the world in which there is no free universal public education, the only children who even learn to read and write are from families wealthy enough to pay the school fees and costs. You are welcome to visit a few of those "ideal world" countries (Burkina Faso, Laos, Bangladesh, Bolivia, etc.) and come back here and report on the general level of education and the economic development that we ought to be striving to emulate in order to achieve your pedagogical utopia. Take a wild guess: What percent of all secondary school age children in Tanzania can actually pay the fees to be enrolled in school?
Spoiler
5%
More than half of all school children in the USA come from households that are income-qualified for reduced cost for school lunch. If those parent's can't afford school tuition fees and cost, either (at least $10K a year), where do you think the USA would get a graduation rate of even 60%?
Has it occurred to you that the reason for higher graduation rates in US private schools is parents stop paying the fees when it becomes clear to them that their brats are going to fail?
There are plenty of countries in the world in which there is no free universal public education, the only children who even learn to read and write are from families wealthy enough to pay the school fees and costs. You are welcome to visit a few of those "ideal world" countries (Burkina Faso, Laos, Bangladesh, Bolivia, etc.) and come back here and report on the general level of education and the economic development that we ought to be striving to emulate in order to achieve your pedagogical utopia. Take a wild guess: What percent of all secondary school age children in Tanzania can actually pay the fees to be enrolled in school?
Spoiler
5%
More than half of all school children in the USA come from households that are income-qualified for reduced cost for school lunch. If those parent's can't afford school tuition fees and cost, either (at least $10K a year), where do you think the USA would get a graduation rate of even 60%?
Has it occurred to you that the reason for higher graduation rates in US private schools is parents stop paying the fees when it becomes clear to them that their brats are going to fail?
you're comparing the USA infastructure to.. tanzania ..a poor african country, under a corrupt government with no economical structure whatsoever.. vs USA.. ..
think about how much a minimum wage family of 4 ($15k a year each) in the USA pays $3000 in taxes every year ( social security, state taxes, property tax blah blah).. each maybe more if you include sales tax on everything they buy.. so $6000 in taxes for $30k a year.. do you think paying $6000 in taxes is enough to give your child 60% chance to graduate ??
as for tuition.. what logic are you using to conclude that if every school was a private school all of a sudden, they would be charging 10k a year for each child ?? this is BASIC supply and demand !!.. the reason why private schools are expensive is because they are in low supply, and high demand .. if all schools were privatised, there would be very high supply and lower demand, meaning, in order for schools to get students, it must put down prices !!.. if a school gets better grades on average, they can charge slightly more because they'll have a higher demand (because everyone wants the best for their child), if a school gets low grades, they must decrease tuition fee because they will be getting lower demand.. all in all, schools will be competing to educate your child hence giving the best quality of teaching.. whereas in government funded schools, they couldn't a give a last f***, they get paid regardless of whether the students are succeeding or not, so there is no competition. there is no drive to get the best from their students to succeed because they get the same whether they do or not.
obviously they wouldn't teach the principles of supply and demand in public schools now would they.. i can assure you the government spends WAY less than $6000 on each student every year in public education.. actually, forget 6k, less than 3k, less than 1.5k, nope, less than $1000 wouldn't even be a surprise. its not even a case of public school teachers get paid less, they get paid the same, if not more than private school teachers. its just when your arse is on the line for your students to perform and give that school a good name, you teach better.
you're comparing the USA infastructure to.. tanzania ..a poor african country, under a corrupt government with no economical structure whatsoever.. vs USA.. ..
think about how much a minimum wage family of 4 ($15k a year each) in the USA pays $3000 in taxes every year ( social security, state taxes, property tax blah blah).. each maybe more if you include sales tax on everything they buy.. so $6000 in taxes for $30k a year.. do you think paying $6000 in taxes is enough to give your child 60% chance to graduate ??
as for tuition.. what logic are you using to conclude that if every school was a private school all of a sudden, they would be charging 10k a year for each child ?? this is BASIC supply and demand !!.. the reason why private schools are expensive is because they are in low supply, and high demand .. if all schools were privatised, there would be very high supply and lower demand, meaning, in order for schools to get students, it must put down prices !!.. if a school gets better grades on average, they can charge slightly more because they'll have a higher demand (because everyone wants the best for their child), if a school gets low grades, they must decrease tuition fee because they will be getting lower demand.. all in all, schools will be competing to educate your child hence giving the best quality of teaching.. whereas in government funded schools, they couldn't a give a last f***, they get paid regardless of whether the students are succeeding or not, so there is no competition. there is no drive to get the best from their students to succeed because they get the same whether they do or not.
obviously they wouldn't teach the principles of supply and demand in public schools now would they.. i can assure you the government spends WAY less than $6000 on each student every year in public education.. actually, forget 6k, less than 3k, less than 1.5k, nope, less than $1000 wouldn't even be a surprise. its not even a case of public school teachers get paid less, they get paid the same, if not more than private school teachers. its just when your arse is on the line for your students to perform and give that school a good name, you teach better.
The US is currently spending $10,600 per pupil on school spending, and graduating only 60%. It is wonderfully encouraging to know that private schools, using your ingenious plan, can spend a lot less than that per pupil, and graduate 95%. By the way, look at tax tables. Families headed by minimum wage workers do not pay any income tax at all, and none of their FICA withholding goes into school funding. Trust me, 95% of their children would not be graduating if they had to pony up for the full cost of private school fees.
Sorry I cannot compare the USA with any first-world countries that do not have any public schools. There aren't any. The only countries that make their population pay out of pocket for private education all have economies like Tanzania's. Just a coincidence, I guess. There couldn't possibly be any correlation between universal public education and high economic development.
The US is currently spending $10,600 per pupil on school spending, and graduating only 60%. It is wonderfully encouraging to know that private schools, using your ingenious plan, can spend a lot less than that per pupil, and graduate 95%. By the way, look at tax tables. Families headed by minimum wage workers do not pay any income tax at all, and none of their FICA withholding goes into school funding. Trust me, 95% of their children would not be graduating if they had to pony up for the full cost of private school fees.
Sorry I cannot compare the USA with any first-world countries that do not have any public schools. There aren't any. The only countries that make their population pay out of pocket for private education all have economies like Tanzania's. Just a coincidence, I guess. There couldn't possibly be any correlation between universal public education and high economic development.
there is no correlation between economic development and public schooling. there are plenty of countries that have public schools, but are still **** poor.
are you saying however much you spend on education is proportion to how successful it is ?? japan government spends $3k per pupil and they have one of the most successful education systems in the world.. trust you i shall not. you don't know basic economics. you don't grasp the concept of economics and efficiency. the way you bought up $10k per student with a 75% success rate as if that's the best it gets too. japan spends $3k on its public schools per student, their success rate is considerably higher than USA's.. japan are one of the best in the world in terms of public schools but its STILL off private schools of USA because of it being funded by the government. there are some private schools in the UK that have a 100% A-A* rate let alone pass !! obviously because of its amazing pass rate, they are allowed to take full advantage and charge a premium on tuition because of supply and demand (very low supply of 100% A-A* schools and very high demand of rich people wanting the best for their child). spending $500-2k a year per pupil (depending on age, which stage of study) while getting really high pass rate is totally realistic in its most efficient form. increasing supply of private schools is the first step.
there is no correlation between economic development and public schooling. there are plenty of countries that have public schools, but are still **** poor.
Name one, which is poor but has universal education in which at least 60% of all children have free public schooling available to them through grade 12.
You cannot name a single **** poor country with free public education, nor a rich one without free public education, yet you say there is no correlation.
yeh, roads already existed in their modern form WAY BEFORE governments started sticking their nose in and had anything to do with them.
as for schools, think about it... in the ideal world where government does not control education, all schools will be private/independant.. are you saying the government funded schools, which have a graduation rate of 60% SHOULD BE KEPT, instead of them being private schools, which have a graduation rate of 95% ?? 60% if government has anything to do with it.. 95% if government doesn't.. and you think 60% is better ??
How would roads be built to the extent we have them now without government? These are funded by our taxes, planned and managed by our governments to keep our society moving, as a benefit to us and our business. How would this happen without government? Private companies would only build something if it were profitable, they are not in business to just break even, to just build things that benefit society. So there would be far fewer roads- only ones where tolls can be charged to total enough to make profits. That would be so much worse than what we have now! It would be a total mess, not enough roads and many of us would not be able to afford driving on them.
And for education, how do you propose people who are poor enough to not be able to afford private schooling for their kids get that education for their kids if there were no public schools? Or do you propose only those with enough $$$ to afford it get the opportunity for an education? My family was broke when I was a kid, barely got by so there would have been zero dollars for private schooling. Now I am an adult, with my education working in a good job with my own house and not needing any government assistance like welfare, food stamps, etc. like my mom had to get when I was a kid. Do you propose people like me not get the chance to go to school, leaving me uneducated so I couldn't ever get a meaningful job, ending up poor and needing to take more benefits from the government just like my mom had to do? That would create a perpetual cycle where poor people are almost guaranteed to remain poor, and their kids would have no hope of pulling out of poverty. Government is not perfect, and some governments are better at managing things than others, but to say we shouldn't even have government involved in all of these necessary things that affect all of us is just one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
Name one, which is poor but has universal education in which at least 60% of all children have free public schooling available to them through grade 12.
You cannot name a single **** poor country with free public education, nor a rich one without free public education, yet you say there is no correlation.
pakistan is one. pakistan is pretty poor, has FREE public education.. they get below 20% graduation rate.. very good. very efficient.. -_-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
How would roads be built to the extent we have them now without government? These are funded by our taxes, planned and managed by our governments to keep our society moving, as a benefit to us and our business. How would this happen without government? Private companies would only build something if it were profitable, they are not in business to just break even, to just build things that benefit society. So there would be far fewer roads- only ones where tolls can be charged to total enough to make profits. That would be so much worse than what we have now! It would be a total mess, not enough roads and many of us would not be able to afford driving on them.
And for education, how do you propose people who are poor enough to not be able to afford private schooling for their kids get that education for their kids if there were no public schools? Or do you propose only those with enough $$$ to afford it get the opportunity for an education? My family was broke when I was a kid, barely got by so there would have been zero dollars for private schooling. Now I am an adult, with my education working in a good job with my own house and not needing any government assistance like welfare, food stamps, etc. like my mom had to get when I was a kid. Do you propose people like me not get the chance to go to school, leaving me uneducated so I couldn't ever get a meaningful job, ending up poor and needing to take more benefits from the government just like my mom had to do? That would create a perpetual cycle where poor people are almost guaranteed to remain poor, and their kids would have no hope of pulling out of poverty. Government is not perfect, and some governments are better at managing things than others, but to say we shouldn't even have government involved in all of these necessary things that affect all of us is just one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
who will build the roads ?? thats a classic statist question. the simple answer is the community that lives there. if you lived in a small town and felt the town would benefit from new road, you get together as a community, those people in the community that would benefit from it ie shortens their commute, gives space to build more houses, would want to pay up, and for those that it won't, they won't have to.. it should be voluntary. that way, road building money isn't wasted, and spent ONLY if it will benefit enough people.
i don't really know what your mum's situation was, or why she was poor. if your mum was poor because she couldn't find a job.. thats thanks to government because the government taxes the S*** out of companies/businesses so they can't afford to hire more than what is absolutely necessary. there's also the sales tax that is charged for everything you buy so that hits you in the pocket. understand that the reason your mum is poor in the first place is because of the government !! the tax rates for everything is absurd and if affects everyone in the country, whether its directly or indirectly. and they tax ALL this, ruin everything for everyone to keep public schools running, and pay for your healthcare, and welfare.. its such an inefficient system, and money is being wasted !! and it gets worse because of the way the government is running things, its spending more than its getting so they print money, when they print money, YOUR money is worth LESS meaning you can buy less, that in a way is a tax in itself.. this way, everyone gets poorer but it affects the poor the most because they can't afford to get poorer than they already are, and people that WERE almost poor, become poor!!.. in my ideal world, government's only jobs are to protect peoples rights through court, police, military.. and thats it.. . that will allow companies and people to keep almost all of their hard earned money to do more productive stuff with their money rather than give it to government through coercion and allow them splash it on such an inefficient infrastructure. in my ideal world, everyone including your mum, have a chance to thrive. its completely and voluntarily their choice to take it, no one forces anyone to do anything.. thats true freedom. in my ideal world, there is no tax, what you earn is what you get. if you want something done on a grand scale, you get together with your community and get it done, without force and only if its worth the benefits.
as for poverty, 15% of the USA is still in poverty. public schools = fail on many levels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
