• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Privatize education

Which support system for your post privatised school?

  • Charity

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Corporate

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Religious

    Votes: 7 21.9%
  • I don't know/I love government control of education

    Votes: 13 40.6%

  • Total voters
    32

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Well of course, if you have a baby state, everyone is happy.

How do you explain their high quality of life and standard of living (great health stats, literacy, education...etc) despite their welfare state?

More competition clearly doesn't equal more quality of life, or Scandinavia wouldn't top the list.

Not a surprise though....making sure everyone has healthcare and having the best health stats in the world, what a coincidence.
 

IlyaK1986

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
481
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Because they uplift the poor in sacrifice of potential affluence.

The best here in America or Japan have a far better standard of living than the best in Scandinavia.

And the people that are too lazy or too stupid to be successful in the greatest economy in the world have nobody but themselves to blame.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Socialist Scandinavia has a lot less competition in their society, but they always sweep the top 10 rankings for quality of life and living standards.

Not really true. They have excellent competitive markets and large transnational corporations based there. They have inferior universities to ours, though.

Oh, and France has better and more competitive health care than does Scandinavia.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Because they uplift the poor in sacrifice of potential affluence.

The best here in America or Japan have a far better standard of living than the best in Scandinavia.

And the people that are too lazy or too stupid to be successful in the greatest economy in the world have nobody but themselves to blame.

Whether you have 1 million dollars or 1 billion, your standard of living is just fine.

If a few billionaires have to be multi-millionaires for the sake of the nations general standards of living, so be it...of course.

Your theory that lack of competition ruins standards of living is bunk. And the top 1% in America owns 40% of the wealth...they have enough wealth.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Not really true. They have excellent competitive markets and large transnational corporations based there. They have inferior universities to ours, though.

Oh, and France has better and more competitive health care than does Scandinavia.

I believe Norway (or Sweden) had the most economic innovation for the year 2007, making things more fair and less competitive doesn't mean the market can't be competitive then. But I guess you agree with this, I'm just differentiating the different standards of competition.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I believe Norway (or Sweden) had the most economic innovation for the year 2007, making things more fair and less competitive doesn't mean the market can't be competitive then. But I guess you agree with this, I'm just differentiating the different standards of competition.

I don't see how things are being made "less competitive," but OK.
 

IlyaK1986

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
481
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Ajblaise, do you not see the over-arcing fallacy of your statement?

What's the point of trying if you're going to get smashed by taxes and Robin Hoods in the government that feel pity for those too weak and worthless to seize one of the countless opportunities around them in free market competition?

Humans are intrinsically selfish. The best system is one that cultivates that selfishness and turns it into productivity.

There is no such thing as "enough" wealth. Wealth exists for those willing to work to claim it. And fools and their money are parted soon enough.

How you choose to live your life should not be dictated by politicians, so long as you are not actively impinging on the livelihood of others.

Free market capitalism is as close as we're going to come to the true law of survival, which is the Darwinian kind. If you're strong, you prosper. If you're weak, you get swept aside.

Welfare is an inefficiency.

Feeding a man a fish is an inefficiency.

It's k-12 teaching that needs a serious dose of competition.

And that's why to that end, I wholeheartedly support better education throughout America, especially Math for America, the creation of one of the great kings of the ENTJs.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
As expected from an INTP...do you not see the over-arcing fallacy of your statement?

What's the point of trying if you're going to get smashed by taxes and Robin Hoods in the government that feel pity for those too weak and worthless to seize one of the countless opportunities around them in free market competition?

Humans are intrinsically selfish. The best system is one that cultivates that selfishness and turns it into productivity.

There is no such thing as "enough" wealth. Wealth exists for those willing to work to claim it. And fools and their money are parted soon enough.

How you choose to live your life should not be dictated by politicians, so long as you are not actively impinging on the livelihood of others.

Free market capitalism is as close as we're going to come to the true law of survival, which is the Darwinian kind. If you're strong, you prosper. If you're weak, you get swept aside.

Welfare is an inefficiency.

Feeding a man a fish is an inefficiency.

It's k-12 teaching that needs a serious dose of competition.

And that's why to that end, I wholeheartedly support better education throughout America, especially Math for America, the creation of one of the great kings of the ENTJs.

What's the point of trying? Because you can still become a millionaire in places like Sweden, because we are driven to improve our quality of life, whether there is a safety net in place or not.

Here's the big thing: Most people aren't on the economic top and never will be, so it's in most people's interest to get the people on the top to give up some of their cake. It's funny that most of the best places to live have progressive taxation.


You sound like you would have liked feudalism. Or anarchy.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't see how things are being made "less competitive," but OK.

Using tax money to pay for people's college education would be an example of making things less competitive. It evens the bar and gives more people a chance to get educated and thus succeed.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Using tax money to pay for people's college education would be an example of making things less competitive. It evens the bar and gives more people a chance to get educated and thus succeed.

Assuming that concept works in reality, that doesn't really make things "less competitive." It actually makes things more competitive, because people would be competing on a level playing field, thereby ensuring that the best win out. That is, of course, unless you are trying to make it so everyone has not only the same chance to succeed but the same RESULTS. Then, it would be anti-competitive.
 

IlyaK1986

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
481
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Using tax money to pay for people's college education would be an example of making things less competitive. It evens the bar and gives more people a chance to get educated and thus succeed.

Except the fallacy here is that college educations have positive externalities and improve living standards as a whole, and thus should be subsidized.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Except the fallacy here is that college educations have positive externalities and improve living standards as a whole, and thus should be subsidized.

Wait are you really saying a college education doesn't improve living standards? A college grad earns something like 20k more than someone with only a high school education. Am I reading you wrong?
 

IlyaK1986

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
481
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Here's the big thing: Most people aren't on the economic top and never will be, so it's in most people's interest to get the people on the top to give up some of their cake.


You sound like you would have liked feudalism. Or anarchy.

Exactly what is wrong.

I prefer a system run by free markets and meritocracy, a system in which those who are incapable are not put on artificial support but just left to fend for themselves, and find themselves done away with in short order.

Sometimes it amazes me how much compassion trumps our utilitarianism, when in reality everyone will be much better off when those that take from the system more than they produce are gone.

Standards of living are a zero-sum game. Something is not created from nothing, thus resources should be put to their best use, which is why I am fundamentally against any first world aid to disease-ridden financial black hole nations and why I support keeping American resources within America and Israel (for their inventions, and to burn away the parasites of the Earth).

Think about it. Is the quickest way to end poverty to keep throwing money away day after day to feed the homeless?

No, there indeed is a much, much faster way to end poverty, and that is the simple and efficient procedure of letting everyone live as they can (or can't) afford to.
 

IlyaK1986

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
481
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Wait are you really saying a college education doesn't improve living standards? A college grad earns something like 20k more than someone with only a high school education. Am I reading you wrong?

Yes, you are. What I meant was saying that funding colleges making the system less competitive is a fallacy.

Colleges carry positive externalities. So they should be subsidized.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Factors like race and economic class should explored because there are very real disparages between minority and lower-income education and middle class white education (of course not every black person receives a poor education, but from a sociological and demographic standpoint, race, culture, and income must be explored)
Race can be explored but it should have nothing to do with policy, since race is an incidental variable.

Perhaps an all black school should be treated different than an all white school, because as you said, culture is relevant, and different races tend to have different cultures.
The culture is relevent, but race isn't. The fact that people of different races tend to have a similar culture is nothing but an accident of history and migration patterns, and should not be important when forming policy decisions. There have been times and places where white people have had cultural norms and attitudes which have corresponded to those of "black culture" in the US today, such as the Irish and Scottish of a the 18th and 19th century. In fact, it is no accident that "black culture" in the US arose where those peoples emigrated to in the US, since they effectively adopted the culture of the Irish and Scottish who they mixed with.

While I think race should be relevant with this issue, I believe economic class is more relevant. Maybe a low-income school will benefit from would benefit more from things like free breakfasts more than a white upper-class school district.
The term "economic class" doesn't make much sense, but I suppose you must mean something more like 'monetary wealth class'. Again, race is an irrelevent factor. Here is a tip: cut the word 'race' out of the discussion, or pretend that everyone is white or black or orange or green or whatever. Then you can get on and have a serious discussion about the cost and quality of education in the US.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Here's the big thing: Most people aren't on the economic top and never will be, so it's in most people's interest to get the people on the top to give up some of their cake. It's funny that most of the best places to live have progressive taxation.
That would be a huge thing, but it isn't true. This mistake even has a name within the field of economics, the zero-sum fallacy. In fact, if I thought that you were right about this then I would be against any free-market, since this would imply that anyone who acquires any wealth can do so only at the expense of someone else i.e. profits would be theft. However, the zero-sum fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Indeed, life on earth would be impossible if it wasn't a fallacy, and so I have no problem with profits, since they add to the total wealth available without taking anything from anyone. The idea that the wealth of the lowest earners can only increase if we steal and share out the wealth of the highest earners is simply false, and there is a huge body of literature on the matter for anyone interested in finding out more.

Edit: On another note, many people who are the lowest earners today will be higher earners before they retire. It is no coincidence that those in the lowest income brackets also tend to be young people who have only just started or have yet to begin their careers. The "classes" are not static and their members are continually changing, as should be expected be in a free economy with or without "progressive taxation" (infact, I would expect less movement between "classes" in places where there is "progressive taxation", since people who are given something for nothing will have little incentive to invest the time and effort to become a bigger earner, and "progressive taxation" has a nasty habit creating a dependent underclass, despite the intentions of those who advocate it).

In any case, the term "progressive taxation" assumes that which is under debate i.e. whether there is any progress made through "progressive taxation". Most of the time, I think not. In fact, half of that which passes for "progressive taxation" seems to me to be anything but, often a transfer of wealth away from those who have least to those who have the most, since it is the latter who successfully pull the right political levers to get their way.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Possibly the greatest tool on control and force of stagnation present in today's society is the public education system and the state control over curriculum.

If education were to be privatized would you prefer to enroll your child in a school supported by charity, a corporation or a religious group?

This is of course assuming you lack the resources to have your child attend a purely tuition supported school.

This isn't an easy question. There are a lot of problems with public education, but each of the alternatives also present problems.

Charity: Too little funding, lower quality.

Corporate: High standards for entry, may specialize students and not offer opportunities to learn other trades.

Religious: Potential for indoctrination, requires nominal faith in religion.

If I had to go with one, I'd say corporate. It seems like it would fix more of the problems with education than the others. It would at least prepare the students for what a part of the job market was looking for. A lot of things about current schools are ineffective to the point that some people would have been just as well off getting a job instead of even attending school.

I'm not sure whether we should keep our current system and try to improve it instead, or whether this would work better... but I can see advantages in this corporate idea given the current state of many public schools.
 
Top