Institutional education is not a necessity. Well, it is as much of a necessity as cars are. One could also create a context - a kid in a rural farm - where higher education is irrelevant to his life. But necessity isn't the point. You want me to mention 100 other things? Paper - yes, paper, that you have text books written on; computers; phones...do I have to go on? In fact, the irony is that if you deem such a product not a necessity - which limits its pool of buyers and restricts the industry's chance of lowering costs - then it is a great way of showing a frivolous, expensive, contraption was brought down to the point where any man could basically buy it.
Education is not an area that screams for government intervention. It existed long before government, it exists now alongside government subsidised education and it will exist long after. Your argument that not everyone had education stemmed from it's cost. Like many things, at one point the cost of attaining that thing means it is less available to one segment of society over another. It doesn't mean that without government intervention these costs aren't lowered. There are far bigger factors involved.
But Education, especially these days, is a staple of human life. Which private initiative wouldn't provide education services when you have so many people demanding it? As I asid, it already exists alongside public schools. This is not a contentious argument at all.
I don't understand your argument. The fact that a lot of countries implement public schools and tax the citizen which yields a high percentage of graduates from those institutions does not facilitate an argument for the necessity of the government in this sector. In the absence of those schools or with the privatisation of those schools, you'll still have graduates. As long as higher education is needed, it'll be sought after and provided for.
I am not sure what you are talking about when you say school is not about money. If it relates to cost, then yes school is about money. For no matter how
virtuous you deem public schooling to be, if it costs too much the country can't afford it. That's not really the issue though because education doesn't require the kind of capital to justify huge spending. Which is kind of the point when people point to the increasing size of the DoE and falling grades.
Years ago education wasn't a big want or need either. Industrialisation and people moving from agricultural sectors into towns provided the need and want for more education. Formal education, even amongst the rich, years ago was often seen as superfluous. It goes without saying that things have to work in concert for the necessity of having something to move it from something a few have to something a lot of people have.
In the end it benefits industry to have higher qualified and more knowledgable people. If people could get high paying jobs which required a minimum of education a lot of people wouldn't go into school. So the demand for education is more important than who supplies it. Again, it will exist regardless of whether government provides it or not.
With all due respect, as soon as I hear someone mention Ayn Rand or Somalia I think they read too many articles from Huff Post and they probably don't know what they're talking about. The philosophies of free markets and liberty are far older than Rand and I don't think all the way consistent with hers either. No one is pushing for anarchy also - which is what Somalia basically was. In the kind of society I and many others push for, the government has to exist. It has to provide the environment where consenting people can get together to meet each other's wants or needs without hurting someone else. The courts have to exist to settle the disputes between people - as fraud and misrepresentation may occur through contract, or criminal activity in general - and the police have to exist to be able to exercise the force of law.
Reagan's voodoo economics is basically what Obama is doing now. So unless you're trying to contradict yourself you're mistaken, and very badly. Reagan was responsible for one of biggest expansions in government in US history - does that sound like 'no gubment' to you? I don't think so.
[video=youtube;HrgckWNgNgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrgckWNgNgE[/video]
Education is not an area that screams for government intervention. It existed long before government, it exists now alongside government subsidised education and it will exist long after. Your argument that not everyone had education stemmed from it's cost. Like many things, at one point the cost of attaining that thing means it is less available to one segment of society over another. It doesn't mean that without government intervention these costs aren't lowered. There are far bigger factors involved.
But Education, especially these days, is a staple of human life. Which private initiative wouldn't provide education services when you have so many people demanding it? As I asid, it already exists alongside public schools. This is not a contentious argument at all.
I don't understand your argument. The fact that a lot of countries implement public schools and tax the citizen which yields a high percentage of graduates from those institutions does not facilitate an argument for the necessity of the government in this sector. In the absence of those schools or with the privatisation of those schools, you'll still have graduates. As long as higher education is needed, it'll be sought after and provided for.
I am not sure what you are talking about when you say school is not about money. If it relates to cost, then yes school is about money. For no matter how
virtuous you deem public schooling to be, if it costs too much the country can't afford it. That's not really the issue though because education doesn't require the kind of capital to justify huge spending. Which is kind of the point when people point to the increasing size of the DoE and falling grades.
Years ago education wasn't a big want or need either. Industrialisation and people moving from agricultural sectors into towns provided the need and want for more education. Formal education, even amongst the rich, years ago was often seen as superfluous. It goes without saying that things have to work in concert for the necessity of having something to move it from something a few have to something a lot of people have.
In the end it benefits industry to have higher qualified and more knowledgable people. If people could get high paying jobs which required a minimum of education a lot of people wouldn't go into school. So the demand for education is more important than who supplies it. Again, it will exist regardless of whether government provides it or not.
With all due respect, as soon as I hear someone mention Ayn Rand or Somalia I think they read too many articles from Huff Post and they probably don't know what they're talking about. The philosophies of free markets and liberty are far older than Rand and I don't think all the way consistent with hers either. No one is pushing for anarchy also - which is what Somalia basically was. In the kind of society I and many others push for, the government has to exist. It has to provide the environment where consenting people can get together to meet each other's wants or needs without hurting someone else. The courts have to exist to settle the disputes between people - as fraud and misrepresentation may occur through contract, or criminal activity in general - and the police have to exist to be able to exercise the force of law.
Reagan's voodoo economics is basically what Obama is doing now. So unless you're trying to contradict yourself you're mistaken, and very badly. Reagan was responsible for one of biggest expansions in government in US history - does that sound like 'no gubment' to you? I don't think so.
[video=youtube;HrgckWNgNgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrgckWNgNgE[/video]
Last edited:
