4 ms·

> I don't recall the former nobility handing our free health care or education. Don't be fooled. Those things only exist because the people have an avenue of i

> I don't recall the former nobility handing our free health care or education. Don't be fooled. Those things only exist because the people have an avenue of influence through the government. Typically, people had to die in their fight for concessions and recognition of rights from the upper classes. Both state sponsored healthcare and public education are actively fought against by the rich.

nitwit005 11y ago
Honestly, I doubt that. Even if you arbitrarily removed all voting power from the poor in the UK today, you'd still have public schools and some form of public health a decade later. Those ideas are quite popular even among the wealthy. If you look back, you'll see public education became a thing partly because the wealthy pushed for it. They understood they would benefit.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Look at the US. Public school funding is being gutted in favor of vouchers or charter schools.
  - nitwit005 11y ago
    That's still handing out free education. They have political beliefs about that approach providing better results, but it's not as-if they want to scrap the idea of government funded education.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      College education isn't free in the U.S. There isn't enough capacity for everyone who wants to go to college, to actually get to go to college. Those too poor to afford it, have to compete amongst each other for limited grants and low cost loans. Those rich enough, pay cash. Everyone else gets a loan.
      - nitwit005 11y ago
        Or, stated more positively, the government gives the poor subsidized loans so they can go university. I'm not really seeing heavy handed oppression by a cruel upper crust.
        cmurf 11y ago
        No that's not true, not everyone who wants to go gets to go. Why bother being overtly oppressive when the vast majority go into massive debt to get a college education, enriching banks in the process; while the upper crust use pocket change to get the same because, afterall, their family is so deserving of this merit.
        nitwit005 11y ago
        I didn't say everyone who wants to go gets to go did I? I just re-stated things positively. Guaranteeing that debt costs the US government quite a bit of money, which means there is an overall transfer of wealth from rich to poor through taxes. Again, it seems more like this has to do with American political ideas, rather than not wanting the poor to be educated. Incidentally, it would appear that you are out of date, as they started lending directly in 2010, instead of lending through banks.

nitwit005 11y ago

Honestly, I doubt that. Even if you arbitrarily removed all voting power from the poor in the UK today, you'd still have public schools and some form of public health a decade later. Those ideas are quite popular even among the wealthy. If you look back, you'll see public education became a thing partly because the wealthy pushed for it. They understood they would benefit.

fucking_tragedy 11y ago
Look at the US. Public school funding is being gutted in favor of vouchers or charter schools.
- nitwit005 11y ago
  That's still handing out free education. They have political beliefs about that approach providing better results, but it's not as-if they want to scrap the idea of government funded education.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    College education isn't free in the U.S. There isn't enough capacity for everyone who wants to go to college, to actually get to go to college. Those too poor to afford it, have to compete amongst each other for limited grants and low cost loans. Those rich enough, pay cash. Everyone else gets a loan.
    - nitwit005 11y ago
      Or, stated more positively, the government gives the poor subsidized loans so they can go university. I'm not really seeing heavy handed oppression by a cruel upper crust.
      - cmurf 11y ago
        No that's not true, not everyone who wants to go gets to go. Why bother being overtly oppressive when the vast majority go into massive debt to get a college education, enriching banks in the process; while the upper crust use pocket change to get the same because, afterall, their family is so deserving of this merit.
        nitwit005 11y ago
        I didn't say everyone who wants to go gets to go did I? I just re-stated things positively. Guaranteeing that debt costs the US government quite a bit of money, which means there is an overall transfer of wealth from rich to poor through taxes. Again, it seems more like this has to do with American political ideas, rather than not wanting the poor to be educated. Incidentally, it would appear that you are out of date, as they started lending directly in 2010, instead of lending through banks.