Education is Not a Right

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
Otep wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.

Hey, maybe if I find oil in my backyard I could squander money too!

Plus, a heavy emphasis on education is a good thing.

If you pay for it yourself.

Do you seriously believe that if the Norwegian government had just lowered taxes and everybody had paid their own way that their educational system would be worse?

I don’t know about the level of the educational system, but they would have lost many talents, and that’s a big deal for a small country.[/quote]

How so?

[orion]

[quote]Otep wrote:
Here’s why I am NOT a fan of eliminating public education.

If you eliminate public education, the rich will afford to send their kids to school, and the poor will decide that short-term gain is more important than long-term investment, and send their child to work.

Over time, this will kill the social mobility I love about America. Youth raised in poverty will not be able to compete with highly educated youth raised in the upper and middle class for modern jobs, and will be forced to take low paying jobs.

This system will perpetuate itself into permanent classhood. This is a bad thing.

Theoretically, youth raised in poverty will be able to afford to put themselves through schooling to one day compete with the youth of the middle and upper class. But they’ll be way behind in terms of experience, too old and have a difficult time doing it (it’s MUCH easier to not have to work while going to school).

So to create an equality of opportunity, I support public education, so that no child is limited by the means of their parents.[/quote]

Every country where education is not public disagrees with you.

Whole families throw their money together so that the best and the brightest can get an education, and these children REALLY work hard.

To think that those problems would not be addressed by society is ludicrous, they would, just more efficiently.

[zephead4747]

[quote]orion wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:

Typically people are drawn to me. I’m the guy who is the life of the party and intelligent enough for people to actually respect. People dig that and want to be around me.

Yup, I am feeling it right now!

Can we be e-pals?

It might help me get e-girls!

[/quote]

want to smoke some e-bud? I got some high school aged e-honeys you might be interested in.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:

Contrary to your beliefs I know that ideas do matter. Without the rights of the Englishmen to own property, no industrial revolution, no free trade, no American revolution, no constitutions, no republics, no freedom.

Property rights are no something to dismiss easily as one right of many, but the philosophical, economical and ethical core of our economic and political system.

Your idea of “rights” threatens the very foundation of our civilization because those ideas are not only inconsistent but directly contradict themselves.

If that was just mental masturbation I would agree that logical consistency is irrelevant, but once people turn the republic from the res publica into a weapon to steal from each other the republic will fall.

In fact it already is falling.

Consistency is also important to me, because it is not a trivial matter to me who owns me. It might not be important to you but I like to think of myself as a free man.

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you?

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

[/quote]

Talking about mental masturbation, who is doing it in Austria just now? Big words, Orion. Tell me, how do you avoid partaking in these mechanisms in Austria? Are you writing from a jail? RESPECT. You are my Don Quixote.

You do not need to worry about property rights in finland. They are safe and sound. Taxation is weak on property, it is based on income.

There is an excellent saying about freedom in finnish, but it is difficult to translate. something like this:
Prisoners walk on the road, freedom is to be found in the deep snow.

But I think you are exaggerating things. I’m not in a position to force anybody. I don’t know about you, but I doubt it. Maybe there is somebody on a lower rung to peck on.

I grant you this: there are different ways to look at things, ideas is one way. I have chosen an other way that I feel gives me better info. If there are no contradictions it is not for real.

But anyway, you really have no ground to stand on and claim that the nordic system of basic education is immoral and a failure. You must be talking about the austrian equivalent.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

How is my question theoretical?

I mean exactly what you are referring to in your last paragraph.

So, explain to me how forcing me at gunpoint to pay for your children´s education is morally different from forcing me to pick your cotton.

I realized you ment taxes when I had written the first paragraph.

Firts, some trivial but important points. Iäm not pointing a gun at you, not physically nor metaphorically. You are not paying for my childrens education, we live in different countries. And I don’t have cottonfields.

Secondly, you seem to turn every question into an question about taxation, just like a feminist always manages to turn every discussion into a critisicm of the patriarchy.

And finally your question. You are forcing a question upon me that you already have an answer to in your framework, that is taxation is evil. Probably the most vile thing mankind have ever invented.

Your problem arises only because you assume that the workings of a society or its government should be logically consistent with a principle. I beg to differ. As I already said, the outcome is the important part.

That you feel like a slave because you have to pay taxes is higly dramatized. Paying taxes in a western country is a far cry from being a slave on the cotton field. That you are able in words to compare these two forms of exploitation doesn’t mean it is meaningful in any way.

Contrary to your beliefs I know that ideas do matter. Without the rights of the Englishmen to own property, no industrial revolution, no free trade, no American revolution, no constitutions, no republics, no freedom.

Property rights are no something to dismiss easily as one right of many, but the philosophical, economical and ethical core of our economic and political system.

Your idea of “rights” threatens the very foundation of our civilization because those ideas are not only inconsistent but directly contradict themselves.

If that was just mental masturbation I would agree that logical consistency is irrelevant, but once people turn the republic from the res publica into a weapon to steal from each other the republic will fall.

In fact it already is falling.

Consistency is also important to me, because it is not a trivial matter to me who owns me. It might not be important to you but I like to think of myself as a free man.

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you?

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

[/quote]

Damn Orion, well said.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

How is my question theoretical?

I mean exactly what you are referring to in your last paragraph.

So, explain to me how forcing me at gunpoint to pay for your children´s education is morally different from forcing me to pick your cotton.

I realized you ment taxes when I had written the first paragraph.

Firts, some trivial but important points. Iäm not pointing a gun at you, not physically nor metaphorically. You are not paying for my childrens education, we live in different countries. And I don’t have cottonfields.

Secondly, you seem to turn every question into an question about taxation, just like a feminist always manages to turn every discussion into a critisicm of the patriarchy.

And finally your question. You are forcing a question upon me that you already have an answer to in your framework, that is taxation is evil. Probably the most vile thing mankind have ever invented.

Your problem arises only because you assume that the workings of a society or its government should be logically consistent with a principle. I beg to differ. As I already said, the outcome is the important part.

That you feel like a slave because you have to pay taxes is higly dramatized. Paying taxes in a western country is a far cry from being a slave on the cotton field. That you are able in words to compare these two forms of exploitation doesn’t mean it is meaningful in any way.

Contrary to your beliefs I know that ideas do matter. Without the rights of the Englishmen to own property, no industrial revolution, no free trade, no American revolution, no constitutions, no republics, no freedom.

Property rights are no something to dismiss easily as one right of many, but the philosophical, economical and ethical core of our economic and political system.

Your idea of “rights” threatens the very foundation of our civilization because those ideas are not only inconsistent but directly contradict themselves.

If that was just mental masturbation I would agree that logical consistency is irrelevant, but once people turn the republic from the res publica into a weapon to steal from each other the republic will fall.

In fact it already is falling.

Consistency is also important to me, because it is not a trivial matter to me who owns me. It might not be important to you but I like to think of myself as a free man.

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you?

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

Damn Orion, well said.[/quote]

What was the part you especially liked?

[Sloth]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

What was the part you especially liked?[/quote]

When he said “the.”

But seriously, the whole thing.

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

Contrary to your beliefs I know that ideas do matter. Without the rights of the Englishmen to own property, no industrial revolution, no free trade, no American revolution, no constitutions, no republics, no freedom.

Property rights are no something to dismiss easily as one right of many, but the philosophical, economical and ethical core of our economic and political system.

Your idea of “rights” threatens the very foundation of our civilization because those ideas are not only inconsistent but directly contradict themselves.

If that was just mental masturbation I would agree that logical consistency is irrelevant, but once people turn the republic from the res publica into a weapon to steal from each other the republic will fall.

In fact it already is falling.

Consistency is also important to me, because it is not a trivial matter to me who owns me. It might not be important to you but I like to think of myself as a free man.

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you?

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

Talking about mental masturbation, who is doing it in Austria just now? Big words, Orion. Tell me, how do you avoid partaking in these mechanisms in Austria? Are you writing from a jail? RESPECT. You are my Don Quixote.

You do not need to worry about property rights in finland. They are safe and sound. Taxation is weak on property, it is based on income.

There is an excellent saying about freedom in finnish, but it is difficult to translate. something like this:
Prisoners walk on the road, freedom is to be found in the deep snow.

But I think you are exaggerating things. I’m not in a position to force anybody. I don’t know about you, but I doubt it. Maybe there is somebody on a lower rung to peck on.

I grant you this: there are different ways to look at things, ideas is one way. I have chosen an other way that I feel gives me better info. If there are no contradictions it is not for real.

But anyway, you really have no ground to stand on and claim that the nordic system of basic education is immoral and a failure. You must be talking about the austrian equivalent.[/quote]

And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

I only want you to admit, that yes, you will take part in the destruction of someone else life if he does not work for you.

That is a natural and inevitable outcome of your philosophy!

WHY CAN`T YOU EMBRACE IT?

Because my philosophy places no burden on you.

There is only one gun the room and you are holding it.

Explain yourself.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
Otep wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.

Hey, maybe if I find oil in my backyard I could squander money too!

Plus, a heavy emphasis on education is a good thing.

If you pay for it yourself.

Do you seriously believe that if the Norwegian government had just lowered taxes and everybody had paid their own way that their educational system would be worse?

I don’t know about the level of the educational system, but they would have lost many talents, and that’s a big deal for a small country.

How so?

[/quote]

I think Otep answered to that question.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

Contrary to your beliefs I know that ideas do matter. Without the rights of the Englishmen to own property, no industrial revolution, no free trade, no American revolution, no constitutions, no republics, no freedom.

Property rights are no something to dismiss easily as one right of many, but the philosophical, economical and ethical core of our economic and political system.

Your idea of “rights” threatens the very foundation of our civilization because those ideas are not only inconsistent but directly contradict themselves.

If that was just mental masturbation I would agree that logical consistency is irrelevant, but once people turn the republic from the res publica into a weapon to steal from each other the republic will fall.

In fact it already is falling.

Consistency is also important to me, because it is not a trivial matter to me who owns me. It might not be important to you but I like to think of myself as a free man.

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you?

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

Talking about mental masturbation, who is doing it in Austria just now? Big words, Orion. Tell me, how do you avoid partaking in these mechanisms in Austria? Are you writing from a jail? RESPECT. You are my Don Quixote.

You do not need to worry about property rights in finland. They are safe and sound. Taxation is weak on property, it is based on income.

There is an excellent saying about freedom in finnish, but it is difficult to translate. something like this:
Prisoners walk on the road, freedom is to be found in the deep snow.

But I think you are exaggerating things. I’m not in a position to force anybody. I don’t know about you, but I doubt it. Maybe there is somebody on a lower rung to peck on.

I grant you this: there are different ways to look at things, ideas is one way. I have chosen an other way that I feel gives me better info. If there are no contradictions it is not for real.

But anyway, you really have no ground to stand on and claim that the nordic system of basic education is immoral and a failure. You must be talking about the austrian equivalent.

And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

I only want you to admit, that yes, you will take part in the destruction of someone else life if he does not work for you.

That is a natural and inevitable outcome of your philosophy!

WHY CAN`T YOU EMBRACE IT?

Because my philosophy places no burden on you.

There is only one gun the room and you are holding it.

Explain yourself.

[/quote]

I will, but if you pardon me, I have to sleep, got to work tomorrow.

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
Otep wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place.

You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.

Hey, maybe if I find oil in my backyard I could squander money too!

Plus, a heavy emphasis on education is a good thing.

If you pay for it yourself.

Do you seriously believe that if the Norwegian government had just lowered taxes and everybody had paid their own way that their educational system would be worse?

I don’t know about the level of the educational system, but they would have lost many talents, and that’s a big deal for a small country.

How so?

I think Otep answered to that question.[/quote]

No, he posted what he thinks would happen, based on no historical data whatsoever.

When the government has done something long enough people think they need it.

Kind of like heroin, but worse.

[Gael]

[quote]orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?[/quote]

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

[Sloth]

[quote]Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?[/quote]

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

[Gael]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.
[/quote]

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.

[orion]

[quote]Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?[/quote]

Well, the US is supposed to have a government by the people, for the people.

So what would I do with someone that works for me and threatens me?

[Sloth]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.[/quote]

The US government also isn’t some landlord of our property, taking it’s rent out of our checks (and through other means). Our government’s nothing but a neccessary evil we charge to defend our property and contracts. It shouldn’t be a tool for violating someone else’s property.

[Gael]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.

The US government also isn’t some landlord of our property, taking it’s rent out of our checks (and through other means). Our government’s nothing but a neccessary evil we charge to defend our property and contracts. It shouldn’t be a tool for violating someone else’s property.[/quote]

A landlord is someone who declares ownership of land, either by buying it from someone or otherwise, and then proclaims that anyone who wishes to live on their property must pay them rent.

A government is something that declares control of land, either through war, purchase, treaties or other means, and then proclaims that anyone who wants to live there must pay taxes.

I would be much more sympathetic to your view that taxes are illegitimate if you were consistent and upheld the same judgment in both cases.

Governments generally do not refer to themselves as landlords. But is this only reason why one is legitimate and one is not?

To illustrate with a hypothetical. Lets say two islands were discovered in the pacific. Both are reasonably desirable locations that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any government (ridiculous in this age, I know, but bear with me).

If a group of people go to the first island and set up what they call a “government” and declare that if anyone wishes to move to the island, they must pay taxes, you would say it’s illegitimate.

But if a group of people go to the second island and call themselves nothing other than landowners, and ask for “rent” you would say this is perfectly acceptable.

It seems you see a huge difference between the two situations.

[Sloth]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.

The US government also isn’t some landlord of our property, taking it’s rent out of our checks (and through other means). Our government’s nothing but a neccessary evil we charge to defend our property and contracts. It shouldn’t be a tool for violating someone else’s property.

A landlord is someone who declares ownership of land, either by buying it from someone or otherwise, and then proclaims that anyone who wishes to live on their property must pay them rent.

A government is something that declares control of land, either through war, purchase, treaties or other means, and then proclaims that anyone who wants to live there must pay taxes.

I would be much more sympathetic to your view that taxes are illegitimate if you were consistent and upheld the same judgment in both cases.

Governments generally do not refer to themselves as landlords. But is this only reason why one is legitimate and one is not?

To illustrate with a hypothetical. Lets say two islands were discovered in the pacific. Both are reasonably desirable locations that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any government (ridiculous in this age, I know, but bear with me).

If a group of people go to the first island and set up what they call a “government” and declare that if anyone wishes to move to the island, they must pay taxes, you would say it’s illegitimate.

But if a group of people go to the second island and call themselves nothing other than landowners, and ask for “rent” you would say this is perfectly acceptable.

It seems you see a huge difference between the two situations.[/quote]

First, you misunderstand me. I do believe we need a revenue source to fund national defense, courts…well, basically the extremely limited powers of our government as set down in the constitution.

Without a doubt I believe we must have a national defense in order to ensure our freedom isn’t swept aside by some outside power.

First Island. No, I wouldn’t say that. I’m not an anarchist. If they taxed to provide a military to prevent some other foreign power from being able to just walk in and completely rob me of my property, fine by me.

Now, if they taxed me because they feel like Jim Bob could use a little bit of money, I’d consider it illegitimate. A government has to respect my property rights. It’s very existence is to protect those rights.

Second Island. Absolutely acceptable, without question. They’re interested in me paying rent. Making a profit. And, not forcing me to participate in kooky social security, bloated and bankrupting Medicare/Medicaid, and spreading the wealth. Now I’d hope they’d form a government to provide courts, defense, and the like.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it [/quote] Not true [quote] away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you? [/quote] they don’t have to flee, they just transfermoney to a tax paradise[quote]

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

[/quote]

Hi Orion, here we go again. I chose this chapter from your writings since this is what you want me to answer to, I think.

Let’s rehash what has been said.
I wrote, that education is defined to be a right in finnish constitution, to which you object that it is impossible, that it can be an entitlement at best. Mmmh, It’s an entitlement to all children and youth, in that case. The act in itself doesn’t change no matter what we call it.

Then there was discussion about the philosophical foundations of a welfare state. You consider philosophical foundations to be of utmost importance, I can’t see why. I’m interested in the results.

And the rest of the discussion, you are focused on taxation and want me to acknowledge that I force other people to partake in this system and that I prance around the issue. I like that expression, well said. True, I prance around it.

Let’s see what we can agree on. We can agree that taxation can be regarded as a form of exploitation, even though the comparison to slavery was retarded.

The reason why I prance aroud the issue is because you simplify it to a point where I can no longer recognize the society I live in. I didn’t accomplish this by myself, you know. Not a single party rallies against the welfare state. You know why? Because , it’s not a winning theme in politics. Everyone gets something in return for their taxes, regardless of income. Education is free and top class, they say.

PISA - PISA

If you are childless and single you have to be satisfied with cheap medical care and the usual safetynet. Now when I think about it, singles do whine a lot. So anyway, we may be thiefs, but we are ethical thiefs.

[Majin]

[quote]orion wrote:
Otep wrote:
Here’s why I am NOT a fan of eliminating public education.

If you eliminate public education, the rich will afford to send their kids to school, and the poor will decide that short-term gain is more important than long-term investment, and send their child to work.

Over time, this will kill the social mobility I love about America. Youth raised in poverty will not be able to compete with highly educated youth raised in the upper and middle class for modern jobs, and will be forced to take low paying jobs.

This system will perpetuate itself into permanent classhood. This is a bad thing.

Theoretically, youth raised in poverty will be able to afford to put themselves through schooling to one day compete with the youth of the middle and upper class. But they’ll be way behind in terms of experience, too old and have a difficult time doing it (it’s MUCH easier to not have to work while going to school).

So to create an equality of opportunity, I support public education, so that no child is limited by the means of their parents.

Every country where education is not public disagrees with you.

Whole families throw their money together so that the best and the brightest can get an education, and these children REALLY work hard.

To think that those problems would not be addressed by society is ludicrous, they would, just more efficiently.[/quote]

Could you post some examples of nations without public education that managed to address the problems Otep mentioned? I’d be interested to read about them.