5 ms·

> Sweden Again, how do you propose to spend as much money as the best private schools, per-student? It would actually be more, as public schools are vastly mo

> Sweden Again, how do you propose to spend as much money as the best private schools, per-student? It would actually be more, as public schools are vastly more inefficient. > That's a detail of implementation The right actually supports something like this with "school vouchers": you can choose where your child's tax dollars go to work. The left is for some bizarre reason opposed to this. > basically you can't start a school where you accept money from parents to provide a more expensive education Why? If I've got money to burn, why? Who cares what some one does with his money, if he's already payed taxes? What right have you to dictate how I spend my money? It's mine, not yours, you have no say how it's spent. > I think it's fine to pay tax money for someone else to study arts with absolutely no possibility of ever "repaing" society economically. All right, you think it's okay. I don't; that's not how I want to spend my money. Instead of trying to force me to do it too, why don't you just contribute to a charity that provides scholarships? Also, most college students spend a lot of time partying, drinking, etc. Why on God's green earth ought I to pay for that? > I'm arguing ideologically, not "practically". Ok, let's discuss ideology. At the end of the day, if you do not pay your taxes and do not show up in court, a bunch of guys will pull up in a black van, bust down your door, and haul you off to jail. If you resist, they might shoot you. This sort of force ought to be reserved for only serious cases. When you force someone to contribute tax, you force him to set aside any possible moral objections or personal issues with the threat of a gun. That threat underlies all the government's day-to-day authority. Such authority ought not to be used to force me to pay for someone spending four years skipping class and binge-drinking. In other words, the basic function of government is to protect my liberties. Forcing me to pay for the college of another does nothing towards this end. > it's not like half the population has to du menial jobs and half can do white collar jobs No, but all of the menial jobs must get done. You claim you want a society where a poor kid is just as likely as a rich one to become a doctor. How do you propose to achieve that? Even with "free" college, you will not achieve that. Poor kids do worse in school, worse in college. > It's not a zero sum game where the number of qualified jobs is fixed. No, but the number of qualified jobs will not expand nearly as much as the pool of qualified applicants. This is because by taxing people more to pay for this free college, you will reduce their income, giving them less to spend. This means you probably won't see much growth in the number of jobs, as the people who pay for things made by these "white-collar" jobs are the ones who you will be most taxing. You will have a large pool of college grads and a smaller pool of jobs; wages will tank. > Because the drive to provide healthcare and education for myself and my family is somehow a positive "force" that drives society and the economy (perhaps I misunderstood)? Shouldn't that be evident in statistics, e.g. that happiness/quality of life indicators are somehow higher the more "want" there is? All I can see is that they seem...lower You're not, say, seeking an extra job to get more for your family. You're trying to vote yourself other people's money to get more for your family. That's theft. With respect to statistics on quality of life: 1. You just said your argument was ideological, not practical. 2. The job of the government is not to make you "happy". It is to safeguard a few basic liberties, roughly outlined by our constitution.

alkonaut 7y ago
> Why? If I've got money to burn, why? Who cares what some one does with his money, if he's already payed taxes? What right have you to dictate how I spend my money? It's mine, not yours, you have no say how it's spent. Because voters decide how the school system works. Here the equality of the school system is a political goal (that even the political right stand behind because of popular support). The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. If you want extra security you can hire a bodyguard (which would be analogous to the tutor). So why have voters here decided that the lack of liberty in spending your own heavily taxed money is a price worth paying for having a more equal education system? I don’t know. Voters could decide this in any country (in many they have already), just like they could decide that publicly funded universal healthcare is a good idea. Importantly - if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it (because I hope we agree that the real job of government isn’t to provide some god given laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve its citizens). It’s not like a large welfare state would be “unconstitutional”, even in the US. You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. Not directly, though funding politicians who set policy for the police who will favor your interests is definitely a way that it can be, and is, regularly done (both with local police and broader-scope law enforcement.)
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > Because voters decide how the school system works Right, they're allowed to decide how the school money for public schools is spent. They have no control over what a free man does on his private property. If he wants to open a school and teach, there is no constitutional provision that allows the government to stop this. America originally maintained the provision that unless you're infringing my basic liberties, the government has no business getting involved. Some people have perverted this and tried to buy votes with hand-outs, but the core principal remains the same. Read the Constitution; it clearly supports this ideal. > you can't buy better service from the police. Wrong. Many wealthy neighborhoods hire an extra sheriff or even a few extras to patrol the neighborhood. > Voters could decide this in any country... if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it Nope. The government upholds a narrowly-defined set of basic liberties laid out in the Constitution. It is not a tool with which the tyranny of the majority may extract its desired outcome from the minority. Socialized medicine is unconstitutional. Free college is unconstitutional. Honestly, public school as constituted today is unconstitutional and ought to be relegated to the states. > I hope we agree that the real job of government isn't to provide some god give laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve it's citizens Sorry, nope. I don't agree, so if you want to take this as a premise going forward, you'll have to actually support it. > It's not like a large welfare state would be "unconstitutional", even in the US. Again, that's incorrect. A reading of the Constitution provides no provision for a federal welfare state. > You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least. Stop referring to public school through high school as bundled with this free college thing. They're separate. The rationale for public school as it exists today is that you cannot be a functioning member of a democratic republic without literacy, logic, etc. That is why we have public schools today. They don't meet expectations, but the justification is not "economic mobility". You may read the above and wonder, "How would a government described above get any thing done?" The answer is that we are based on federalism. The rest of the world rests on large central governments, we do not. The core assumption is that the federal government does the bare minimum, and the rest of the power is retained by the state. The state will do what is necessary only at that level, and the rest is retained by counties and municipalities. Those fulfill their bare minimum of necessary duties, and most power is retained by the individual. Originally, the Constitution only protected rights from infringement by the feds. The 14th amendment changed that; these days the states cannot violate rights either. Theoretically, a state could introduce a health-care system. Indeed, California and Massachusetts do this already. The only reason why some one would try to do this at a national level is so he can force his personal views on those who disagree with him. This "stick it to the red state/blue state" (depending on who is in office) attitude of federal politicians is harmful and violates both the principles of federalism and the Constitution itself. These people have the biggest mouths, and try to promulgate the disingenuous idea that the federal government is the ultimate source of power. This is what people in other nations see. It is, however, not true. You are approaching this from the perspective of Sweden - a bloated, over-might central government which is the ultimate receptacle of power. This central government then delegates down whatever rights it sees fit for you to have. This is why it can construct rights such as health-care. The feudal roots of modern European nations allows such behavior, as the cultural premise of noblesse oblige and "grace from above" is ingrained into your government. This is not the case here. Those who seek to make it so are motivated only by power, as that sort of structure carries vastly more.

alkonaut 7y ago

> Why? If I've got money to burn, why? Who cares what some one does with his money, if he's already payed taxes? What right have you to dictate how I spend my money? It's mine, not yours, you have no say how it's spent. Because voters decide how the school system works. Here the equality of the school system is a political goal (that even the political right stand behind because of popular support). The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. If you want extra security you can hire a bodyguard (which would be analogous to the tutor). So why have voters here decided that the lack of liberty in spending your own heavily taxed money is a price worth paying for having a more equal education system? I don’t know. Voters could decide this in any country (in many they have already), just like they could decide that publicly funded universal healthcare is a good idea. Importantly - if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it (because I hope we agree that the real job of government isn’t to provide some god given laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve its citizens). It’s not like a large welfare state would be “unconstitutional”, even in the US. You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. Not directly, though funding politicians who set policy for the police who will favor your interests is definitely a way that it can be, and is, regularly done (both with local police and broader-scope law enforcement.)
big_chungus 7y ago
> Because voters decide how the school system works Right, they're allowed to decide how the school money for public schools is spent. They have no control over what a free man does on his private property. If he wants to open a school and teach, there is no constitutional provision that allows the government to stop this. America originally maintained the provision that unless you're infringing my basic liberties, the government has no business getting involved. Some people have perverted this and tried to buy votes with hand-outs, but the core principal remains the same. Read the Constitution; it clearly supports this ideal. > you can't buy better service from the police. Wrong. Many wealthy neighborhoods hire an extra sheriff or even a few extras to patrol the neighborhood. > Voters could decide this in any country... if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it Nope. The government upholds a narrowly-defined set of basic liberties laid out in the Constitution. It is not a tool with which the tyranny of the majority may extract its desired outcome from the minority. Socialized medicine is unconstitutional. Free college is unconstitutional. Honestly, public school as constituted today is unconstitutional and ought to be relegated to the states. > I hope we agree that the real job of government isn't to provide some god give laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve it's citizens Sorry, nope. I don't agree, so if you want to take this as a premise going forward, you'll have to actually support it. > It's not like a large welfare state would be "unconstitutional", even in the US. Again, that's incorrect. A reading of the Constitution provides no provision for a federal welfare state. > You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least. Stop referring to public school through high school as bundled with this free college thing. They're separate. The rationale for public school as it exists today is that you cannot be a functioning member of a democratic republic without literacy, logic, etc. That is why we have public schools today. They don't meet expectations, but the justification is not "economic mobility". You may read the above and wonder, "How would a government described above get any thing done?" The answer is that we are based on federalism. The rest of the world rests on large central governments, we do not. The core assumption is that the federal government does the bare minimum, and the rest of the power is retained by the state. The state will do what is necessary only at that level, and the rest is retained by counties and municipalities. Those fulfill their bare minimum of necessary duties, and most power is retained by the individual. Originally, the Constitution only protected rights from infringement by the feds. The 14th amendment changed that; these days the states cannot violate rights either. Theoretically, a state could introduce a health-care system. Indeed, California and Massachusetts do this already. The only reason why some one would try to do this at a national level is so he can force his personal views on those who disagree with him. This "stick it to the red state/blue state" (depending on who is in office) attitude of federal politicians is harmful and violates both the principles of federalism and the Constitution itself. These people have the biggest mouths, and try to promulgate the disingenuous idea that the federal government is the ultimate source of power. This is what people in other nations see. It is, however, not true. You are approaching this from the perspective of Sweden - a bloated, over-might central government which is the ultimate receptacle of power. This central government then delegates down whatever rights it sees fit for you to have. This is why it can construct rights such as health-care. The feudal roots of modern European nations allows such behavior, as the cultural premise of noblesse oblige and "grace from above" is ingrained into your government. This is not the case here. Those who seek to make it so are motivated only by power, as that sort of structure carries vastly more.