|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it?
Truly don't understand.
|
On March 14 2012 00:09 Count9 wrote: I'm a firm believer of you get what you paid for, for the most part. I've heard arguments that with free education then the quality of education would actually go up because really smart people with poor circumstances that usually decline admissions because of not enough scholarship money will be able to go to their first choice out of state private schools (only talking about the U.S. here) but I don't buy that. I think universally free education will ultimately decline the quality of education, look at the U.S. public schools, which are completely free. They had to create the magnet school system to sort this stuff out.
Isn't that the EXACT argument people against healthcare in the USA make? Yeah well all the studies and European examples show that government run healthcare provides better results than private healthcare 'BUT I DON'T BUY THAT'.
|
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
I guess you never call 911 either huh? Those powerful people paying taxes might come knocking at your door one day demanding your freedom.
|
On March 14 2012 00:03 Red112 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
|
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. This much is 100% true.
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. This is only true to some extent. If the government is the one doing the administration of the educational facilities and the hiring of staff etc., then yes, they will have a lot of control over it; however, if it's private institutions who administrate them and get their funding through the government, then the latter group has less room to push any partisan agendas through the education system.
It's a bit like housing subsidies; if the government gives you a lower interest rate on your mortgage or whatever, it doesn't mean that they get to choose what house you live in.
|
On March 14 2012 00:03 Mafs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On March 13 2012 23:56 Euronyme wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. Try reading the thread champ. I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately. I think if someone who can understand the meaning behind what you wrote knows you answered OP. I agree 100% with unschooling and homeschooling, its the BEST possible and most efficient education for people who are not complete morons, and know what they want to do.I among others are wasting potential by being in schools and wasting time on things I could be learning. But we have to make progress somewhere, free university is a start. That way people do not have to worry about marks or money required to go to university, and get 50% in all their courses before to learn more by themselves. Our system for education, economy, and voting are all horrid. For the US and CA. The rich keep getting richer because they are organized, less of them makes it easier. And the opposite with poor people. And the people in the middle are being slowly drained and put into the poor class. If we want the society to change for the better we have to change everything.
Sadly, very few understand why what is happening in today's world. The Classical Liberal Class Theory has all but been forgotten in lieu of the completely insane and wrong Marxist Class Theory. Any cursory view of the situation confirms the Liberal view. Whenever the State grows in power, those attached to the vestiges of power become richer, while those pilfered from become poorer. Thus, you see the Corporations and Politicians that are getting richer are nearly completely in bed with Government to impose restrictions, regulations, and impediments on the rest of society to reduce competition, as well as to eat the taxpayer. The solution to the problem of an overarching State is not to increase its powers, but to reduce them and restore individual liberty.
If only Charles Dunoyer and Charles Comte were around today.
In any event, progress by its definition means steps toward a goal. If the goal is a wealthier society, a more equal society, as well as a society that progresses forward, then progress means a liberal society. So a start would be repealing any regulation or imposition upon homeschooling and unschooling, reducing and eliminating property taxes, and ending State-compulsory attendance to their institutions. That's a start :p
|
On March 14 2012 00:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:03 Red112 wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum. You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end. Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
|
On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
Government decides what is educated in government ran education. In a democratic nation government = majority of peoples opinion In a democratic nation government != people who pay most taxes opinion.
The thing is just in most nations most people vote for representatives that have same visions as the rich people. This is not the case in all nations, unlike your post clearly hints.
|
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that requires the work of intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally a great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children seems to be because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated as some of their private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good than most private companies.
You reminded me of Santorum's rant about colleges being institutions of elitism and snobbery.
Stupidity is hard to kill when people are anti-intellectuals who reek of mediocrity and are unashamedly proud of it.
|
On March 14 2012 00:12 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some. Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it? Truly don't understand.
Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
|
On March 14 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists. Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning. You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc. You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It's the same old right wing projection. Pretend that schools are indoctrinating children to a certain belief to strengthen the case for not sending your kids to school and insead homeschool them, where you can actually indoctrinate them into holding the exact same beliefs the parent does.
|
On March 14 2012 00:23 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:12 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some. Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it? Truly don't understand. Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
Who is "they"? The governement? There are institutions who take care of this, and there are not directly related to all the tax payers. Really don't see your point.
|
On March 14 2012 00:23 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:12 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some. Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it? Truly don't understand. Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money.
Government forces the rich to pay taxes, and government is allowed to spend those tax money how ever they want. Rich people have one vote as do poor people to decide how the government spends their money/how money spent in schooling is used.
|
On March 14 2012 00:19 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some. Government decides what is educated in government ran education. In a democratic nation government = majority of peoples opinion In a democratic nation government != people who pay most taxes opinion. The thing is just in most nations most people vote for representatives that have same visions as the rich people. This is not the case in all nations, unlike your post clearly hints.
Pols might talk big about how they care for the poor, but they still answer to the rich people who finance their election campaigns.
|
On March 13 2012 23:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:34 meadbert wrote: It depends. At levels that everyone should obtain then making education free has great benefits. Once you hit a level that most people will not obtain, you are basically spending state money to subsidize the future upper class which is the most regressive thing that can be done.
The way the college system typically operates is they seek those people who are already most likely to be successful and then make them even more successful while taxing those who are less likely to be successful to pay for it.
Which is only true in the fantasy world where the (often educated) middle class (And the rich) don't pay a disproportionately larger share of taxes. Show nested quote + In America, someone with a Master's Degree is expected to make $1.3M more than someone with just a high school diploma. I have no problem with saddling the fortunate student with $150K in student loans since that still leaves them $1M ahead.
He's also expected to pay some $300,000K more in taxes back to the government, off that income. Investing into accessible post-secondary education provides amazing returns from the government's... And socity at large's side of the coin... Show nested quote +In the US, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you die, because you can't afford the healthcare. In universal healthcare countries such as sweden, you can pay and see a specialist quickly... or you can wait in line and see one for free. More like you can get whatever treatment you need, quickly if you're in danger of dropping dead... Or wait in line if you're not. "Investing" in college for the student only pays back fantastic returns if the student would not have gone to college without the government paying for it. In most cases the student would have still gone.
It is true that high income taxes discourage education, because increasing one's income. If this becomes a significant problem, it will not be unique to education but will affect all kinds of investment. The solution to this problem is to lower the income tax.
Making investment in educational capital subsidized while heavily taxing traditional capital you create a system that provides great rewards to the intelligent at everyone else's expense.
|
On March 14 2012 00:27 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:19 Sea_Food wrote:On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some. Government decides what is educated in government ran education. In a democratic nation government = majority of peoples opinion In a democratic nation government != people who pay most taxes opinion. The thing is just in most nations most people vote for representatives that have same visions as the rich people. This is not the case in all nations, unlike your post clearly hints. Pols might talk big about how they care for the poor, but they still answer to the rich people who finance their election campaigns.
That's for the US. In most european countries it's the state who pays the elections, giving subsidies to the parties depending of their previous results.
|
On March 14 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists. Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning. You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc. You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
What is this post? See this is what I mean by Socialists assuming and making asses of themselves. As in the analogy I gave in my first post. Because I am against the State providing 'education' therefore, I must be against science, math, etc. etc. How absurd can one get? Because I do not want the State to grow food, therefore I want everyone to starve. This is your reasoning. In actuality it is the complete opposite. Because of my love of advancement and progress, I precisely do not want the State involved whatsoever.
If you had read my post you would not have written what you did.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
|
On March 14 2012 00:26 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:23 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 00:12 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 00:09 Freddybear wrote: Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some. Elaborate? Why would "they" have more control over it? Truly don't understand. Somebody has to pay the school, and that payment is going to come with strings attached. Guaranteed. They will decide what they'll pay for and what they won't, and you won't have any say in the matter since it's not your money. Who is "they"? The governement? There are institutions who take care of this, and there are not directly related to all the tax payers. Really don't see your point.
Those institutions don't care what they spend their money for? No agenda at all? They don't specify certain requirements?
|
On March 14 2012 00:19 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On March 14 2012 00:03 Red112 wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum. You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end. Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
|
On March 14 2012 00:29 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists. Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning. You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc. You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies. It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
|
|
|
|